국제법상 인도적 개입 - 그 개념, 합법성 및 성문화에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -

This article argues that it is more desirable to have a rule of humanitarian intervention(in particular, unilateral humanitarian intervention) capable of dealing with complex humanitarian crises, rather than the absence of a clearly defined rule, for the purposes of international law and the protection of human rights. For this argument, this article reviews the advantages of codifying a norm of unilateral humanitarian intervention, the ways in which such norm could be codified, and substantive or procedural criteria that should included in a codified norm. Of course, it is expected that there exist many difficulties in codifying, such as the reconcilement between the principles of state sovereign, the non-intervention and the non-use of force, and those of human rights. Despite such difficulties, this article points out, the advantages the codification of a norm of this area of international law holds in the long term. That is to say, the codification will be able to prevent abusive interventions(in particular, the pretextual intervention), enhance the normativity and legitimacy of international law, and preserve state sovereignty. Also, this article points out that the content of a codified norm must be normatively desirable, and that codifying strict and clear criteria is more appropriate in context of unilateral humanitarian intervention, given that the fear of abuse of unilateral intervention is particularly acute, and that codifying strict criteria would be less controversial. In addition, this article deals briefly with the concept and lawfulness of humanitarian intervention.