The goal of the military intervention is to mainly prevent human rights abuses, provide simple living conditions for the alienated population of a third-world country, settle conflicts that are likely to jeopardize regional and international peace and security and end the economic isolation of the country’s people. As the domestic and foreign outcomes of the conflicts between states go beyond the people’s main interests, humanitarian intervention may be interpreted as the reflection of “basic social needs” that must be fulfilled for the people of the world.
It finally means that the achieved possibility of war crime with the same legal status and meaning as the violation of international peace may be assessed based on the criterion of “public need.” The thesis asserts that the situation of unauthorized military intervention without UN Security Council approval, founded on the ability to judge “universal necessity,” may reflect an ethical call that establishes universal international public order.
Unfortunately, steps by the SCO countries to solve these conflicts through political and diplomatic methods have not brought significant results. What could be the main reason behind it? The case of unilateral military intervention in the internal conflicts of third countries is well known.
How can these actions by other countries be evaluated? If “pro-humanitarian” principles are based on the idea of human rights and freedoms, and there are no other universally accepted values, then, as a general rule, the states do not have the moral right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries without the consensus of the United Nations Security Council – international management body which bears primary responsibility for global peace and security. However, if implementing “one-sided justice” principles, the states implement additional moral interference, not political or military.