Humanitarian intervention, a refugee reducing or increasing action?- a case study on Iraq

Sammanfattning: My thesis is a case study on the intervention in Iraq 2003, which was intensely debated prior the intervention and the debate is not yet concluded. My purpose is to analyse whether the intervention may be seen as a humanitarian intervention according to the criterions stipulated by the ICISS's report on the ''Responsibility to Protect'' and other authors' views about what justify a humanitarian intervention. The humanitarian argument has become more important in the ex posto intervention, to justify the intervention on humanitarian grounds with the aim to overthrow and prosecute Saddam Hussein. According to the ICISS' criterions to justify a humanitarian intervention large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing have to take place. The aim of the interveners has to be humanitarian and means employed have to abide by humanitarian law and human rights. Especially these three criterions I find not justifying the Iraqi intervention as humanitarian. I believe the aim of the Allies was of political character since the aim was to disarm Iraq and to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Even according to views of authors I present, a regime change may be an aim of a humanitarian intervention&semic in this case I find it not. The International Community also declared such an aim to be contrary to International Law. Also the fact that the Coalition during the intervention has violated human rights and gravely set aside the Geneva Conventions makes it difficult to see the intervention as humanitarian. Another criterion for justifying a humanitarian intervention is that action will do more good than inaction. In regard of the Iraqi intervention I find it questionable if the intervention has done more good than harm. A dictator was replaced by insurgency and a risk of civil war, triggered by the release of long time hostilities between ethnic groups which Saddam Hussein had kept in check. A civil war appears in addition to be imminent. I therefore move on to look at whether the intervention could be justified as humanitarian for reasons of reducing the producing of refugees and promoting the repatriation of refugees as functional justifications. As part of the analysis whether the intervention has reduced the producing of refugees I do an empirical study on Sweden. In addition I analyse whether according to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Stateless persons, actors of persecution still exist in Iraq based on among other things decisions from the Swedish MB and AAB. I also make a study on whether Iraqis still may or have fallen into the Swedish subsidiary protection categories enshrined in the Aliens Act chapter 3, section 3. As part of the analysis of whether the intervention has promoted the repatriation of refugees, I analyse whether the cessation clause in the 1951 Refugee Convention is applicable in regard of Iraqis and whether the policy of the Swedish authorities has changed towards Iraqis. My conclusions are that the intervention in Iraq neither is justifiable for reasons of reducing the producing of refugees since I find that despite the fall of Saddam Hussein, who was the main reason for the earlier producing of refugees from Iraq, new actors of persecution have entered the arena, including the US forces, which means that Iraqis still may qualify for refugee status in case the persecution feared can be linked to a Convention ground. Also the categories of subsidiary protection support that the producing of refugees has not been reduced since Iraqis are still falling into those categories, especially the torture provision. The analysis of the cessation clause comes to the conclusion that Iraq is subject to a fundamental change but that the change is not yet durable and stable because of the ongoing violence and the insecure situation and therefore it is too early to apply cessation. Instead the intervention itself has triggered new displacement both outside and inside Iraq and hence neither reduced the producing of refugees nor promoted repatriation. In conclusion despite the fall of Saddam Hussein people may still have protection needs and may not be returned. Consequently, before revoking their refugee status it is important to assess anew the protection needs for reasons of not violating other protection grounds and the principle of non-refoulement. I further conclude that humanitarian interventions should not be justified solely for reasons of reducing the producing of refugees and promoting the repatriation. To keep its credibility a broad support from UN and the fulfilment of the criterions should be strived for, which also the intervention in Iraq is a lesson of. I further conclude that no legal right to unauthorised humanitarian intervention exists yet despite examples of state practice, since such a right is not generally accepted as lawful. GA resolutions from earlier interventions clearly state unauthorised interventions to be unlawful. Statements from states and Kofi Annan declare the Iraqi intervention to be illegal and hence the intervention in Iraq may neither be justifiable on humanitarian grounds. The intervention was subsequently an unlawful unilaterally recourse to force.