The illegality of war: is interventionism ever justified?

In recent days, NATO's intervention in Libya has come to an end. The war is won; Gaddafi is dead, and the new democratic leadership can begin to%20build%20a%20new%20system%20of%20government.%20%0A%0AThe%20Libyan%20intervention%20is%20just%20the%20most%20recent%20in%20a%20long%20line%20of%20military%20incursions%20justified%20on%20the%20grounds%20of%20%22r%C3%A9gime%20change%22%3A%20eight%20years%20ago%20was%20Iraq%3B%20ten%20years%20ago%20was%20Afghanistan.%20So%20do%20States%20have%20a%20right%20to%20intervene%20in%20the%0one%20State/fairs%20of%ene%20in%20the%20affairs%20of%20another%3F%0A%0AI%20think%20not.%20If%20we%20take%20Libya%20as%20an%20example%2C%20the%20justification%2pretty%20simply%3A%20war%20is%20illegal%20unless%20it%20is%20justified%20by%20a%20vote%20of%26nbsp%3BUnited%20rule%20of%20customary%20law.%20In%20Afghanistan%2C%20it%20was%20a%20similar%20affair%2C%20and%20more%20easily%20justified%20on%20the%20grounds%20of%20self-defence%20as%20the%20Taliban%20had%20been%20responsible)%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20Charter.%0A%0AOne%20of%20the%20cardinal%20principles%20of%20international%20law%20is%20the%20%3Cb%3EPrinciple%20of%20Non-Intervention%3C%2Fb%3E%2C%20which%20means%20that%20no%20state%20is%20justified%20in%20interfering%20in%20the%20affairs%20of%20another%20state%2C%20whether%20they%20be%20political%2C%20cultural%20or%20social%20affairs%3B%20whether%20directly%20through%20an%2s.%0A%0AThat%20case%20was%20in%201986%2C%20and%20since%20then%20we%20have%20seen%20many%20wars%20of%20intervention%20across%20the%20globe.%20Do%20these%20mean%20that%20a%20new%20legal%20right%20has%20been%20createdvoke%20a%20novel%20%22Right%20to%20Intervene%22%20as%20justification%20for%20interventionist%20wars.%0A%0AThat%20case%20was%20in%201986%2C%20and%20since%20then%20we%20have%0for%20NATO's%20intervention%20was%20the%20UN%20Security%20Council's%20support%2C%20rather%20than%20a%20new%20rule%20of%20customary%20law.%20In%20Afghanistan%2C%20it%20was%20a%20simi0the%20affairs%20of%20another%3F%0A%0AI%20think%20not.%20If%20we%20take%20principle%20of%20Non-Intervention%20and%20State%20Sovereignty%20520for%20funding%20Al%20Qaida.%0A%0AIraq%20is%20the%20exception.%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20supported%20by%20the%20UN%20Security%20Council%2C%20nor%20by%20an%20inherent%20right%20of%20self-defence%2C%20nor%20even%20by%20the%20basic%20necessity%20of%20evidence.%20It%20is%20therefore%20very%20easy%20to%20argue%20that%20Iraq%20was%2C%20and%20is%2C%20an%20illegal%20war%3B%20moreover%2C2C%20which%20came%20before%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%2C%20the%20Court%2C%20while%20upholding%20the%20Principle%20of%20Non-Intervention%2C%20admitted%20that%20a%20new%20rule%20could%20be%20created%20if%20States%20began%20to%20invoke%20a%20novel%20%22Right%20to%20Intervene%22%20as%2in%201986%2C%20and%20since%20then%20we%20have%20seen%20many was%20in%201986%2C%20and%20since%20then%20we%20have%20seen%20many%20wars%20of%20intervention%20across%20the%20globe.%20Do%20these%20mean%20that%20a%20new%20legal%20right%20has%20been%20created%20for%20one%20State%20to%20intervene%20in%20the%20affairs%20of%20another%3F%0A%0AI%20think%20not.%20If%20we%20take%20Libya%20as%20an%20example%2C%20the%20justification%20for%20NATO's%20intervention%20was%20the%20UN%20Security%20Council's%20support%2C%20rather%20than%20a%20new%20rule%20of%20customary%20law.%20In%20Afghanistan%2C%20it%20was%20a%20similar%20affair%2C%20and%20more%20easily%20justified%20on%20the%20grounds%20of%20self-defence%20as%20the%20Taliban%20had%20been%20responsible%20for%20funding%20Al%20Qaida.%0A%0AIraq%20is%20the%20exception.%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20supported%20by%20the%20UN%20Security%20Council%2C%20nor%20by%20an%20inherent%20right%20of%20self-defence%2C%20nor%20even%20by%20the%20basic%20necessity%20of%20evidence.%20It%20is%20therefore%20very%20easy%20to%20argue%20that%20Iraq%20was%2C%20and%20is%2C%20an%20illegal%20war%3B%20moreover%2C%20this%20one%20example%20cannot%20justify%20the%20creation%20of%20a%20new%20Right%20of%20Intervention%2C%20especially%20considering%20that%20most%20of%20the%20world%20(except%20the%20UK)%20came%20out%20in%20outr520not%20perfect.%20While%20its%20prohibition%20of%20war%20except%20for%20self-defence%20and%20except%20where%20authorised%20by%20the%20UN%20is%20not%20perfectly%20followed%2C%20it%20is%20much%20better%20to%20live%is%20much%20better%20at%20keeping%20peace%20in%20the%20world%20than%20would%20be%20a%20Right%20to%20Intervene.%20If%20one%20state%20successfully%20argued%20for%20the%20creation%20of%20such%20a%20new%20right%2C%20it%20would%20not%20only%20be%20allowing%20itself%20to%20invade%20wherever%20it%20likes%2C%20but%20also%20inviting%20the%20invasion%20of%20its%20own%20territory%20by%20other%20nations.%0A%0AMoreover%2C%20as%20observed%20by%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%2C%20a%20Right%20of%20Intervention%20%22would%20be%20reserved%20for%20the%20most%20powerful%20states%22.%20Geopolitical%20giants%20like%20the%20US%20and%20China%20would%20be%20able%20to%20colonise%20where%20they%20wish%2C%20while%20comparative%20minnows%20like%20El%20Salvador%2C%20Serbia%20and%20the%20Ivory%20Coast%20would%20only%20ever%20find%20themselves%20as%20the%20victims%20of%20intervention.%20%0A%0AInternational%20Law%20is%20not%20perfect.%20While%20its%20prohibition%20of%20war%20except%20for%20self-defence%20and%20except%20where%20authorised%20by%20the%20UN%20is%20not%20perfectly%20followed%2C%20it%20is%20much%20better%20to%20live%20in%20a%20world%20that%20tries%20to%20keep%20international%20peace%20than%20to%20allow%20the%20emergence%20of%20a%20world%20where%20states%20have%20an%20inherent%20right%20to%20invade%20when%20and%20where%20they%20please.