19
domestic and external constituencies as interconnected principles of the international
order’ (Deng 1995, p.278, emphasis added).
The point is to underline the fact that a
state needs to demonstrate its ‘sovereign responsibilities’ not just to its citizens but also
to the international community as a whole; and by emphasizing this latter, external
dimension of the sovereign state system, Deng argues for humanitarian, multilateral
intervention in a way that eventually strengthens this system.
Finally, it is also notable that Deng’s theory does not seem to include military
options as the focus is mainly on multinational or UN-led humanitarian operations.
Though the ICISS report deals mainly with the issue of what could conventionally be
described as humanitarian military intervention, its report is clear in treating this type of
intervention as one of a broad range of measures that should be employed only when the
other, less than military steps are exhausted (see, e.g., ICISS 2001, p.39).
In any case,
the intention here is to secure humanitarian access in zones of conflict; military action
comprises only a small, if any, part of the wide spectrum of humanitarian actions.
For Haass, in contrast, intervention into a failed state is justified as part of
self-defence of the intervening state.
As we have seen, he spells out the conditions for
Convention