Publication

This background paper assumes that NATO should intervene in troubled, yet still sovereign states, not only in the name of self-defense, but also if there are gross and widespread violations of human rights, if there is a grave threat to regional stability, and/or if there is a serious threat to global/collective security in general. Since there are no intervention criteria for Alliance to rely on, this background paper focuses on the development of such criteria. In the first part, it identifies the traditional forms of intervention that exist and the legal rules and prohibitions that bound them. Secondly, it discusses recent thinking on the permissibility of interventions. Thirdly, it highlights some historical lessons learned that might help define viable intervention criteria for the future. Finally, it will provide four possible sets of criteria that NATO might use to determine when to intervene, either militarily or not, in its own security zone or elsewhere.