During the April plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Parliament adop ted a report on the right of huma nitarian intervention. The D66 MEP Jan Willem Bertens was the rapporteur on behalf of the EP's Committee on foreign affairs and security. The basis for the report was a resolution dating back to 1990 on the right of non interven tion in the internal affairs of anot her state. The different approach, as a result of four years of rapid developments in the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall, is indi cative of the change in thinking about this issue.

Since 1989, the "usability" of the United Nations Organiza tion has increased. However, now that the UN is increasingly being called upon, it also becomes apparent that this organization is not always able to undertake the tasks which are incumbent on it. Against this background the discus sion has been rekindled about the long standing principle of non inter vention in the internal affairs of a state as opposed to the existence of a right of (humanitarian) interven tion. The events in Iraq and Somalia, the continuing tragedy in former Yugoslavia and the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda have brought and kept the notion of humanitarian interven tion in the focus of attention. The time has come for the European Union to determine its position on humanitarian interventions in the framework of the Union's common foreign and security policy. The ple nary debate on Bertens' report pro vided the opportunity for the Euro pean Parliament to draw up the out lines of such a position.

Jan Willem Berlens says about his report: "In the debate in plenary I wanted to make one thing very clear from the outset: what is laid down in my report does not represent a permit for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other states as they see fit. The aim of the report is to define based on a thorough stu dy of the relevant principles of inter national law a set of strict criteria which must be met by any interven tion in order to be rightly termed a humanitarian intervention. This means that such an intervention must deri ve its motive from the protection of fundamental human rights of pers ons who are subjects of or resident in another state. It has been almost generally accepted that human rights are universal and that the human rights situation in a country no longer belongs to that country's "internal affairs". This also implies a universal responsibility for the res pect of human rights. It goes wit hout saying that an intervention will always be a last resort. But if all else -such

as preventive diplomacy, sanc tions and what have you has failed, the protection of fundamental hu man rights can provide sufficient justification for humanitarian inter vention, including if necessary the use of military force."

"Obviously, the European Parlia ment and its rapporteur would far prefer action in the framework of the UN with a mandate of the Secu rity Council wherever this is possi ble. But at the same time, and however unfortunate, we have to face the fact that the UN organiza tion is as yet not equipped, decision making included, to respond timely and effectively under all circumstan ces. This being so, it must be possible, in emergency situations, to act even without prior mandate of the UN, provided that the criteria agreed upon are met. This is a crucial provision, since the UN will al ways retain the final say. It is precise ly for this reason that one of the cri teria proposed in the report reads that any such action must be repor ted to the UN immediately and should not subsequently be con demned by the Security Council".

The criteria proposed in the report are all intended to make sure that there will be no question of a permit to proceed to intervention lightly. The protection of human rights must be the primary objective of the intervention and no other motives of a political or economic nature must play a role. It must be apparent that the UN apparatus is unable to take effective and timely action. The use of force, if inevitable, must be proportionate and tempor ary. Past interventions which have been widely condemned, such as in Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua or Panama, would not have met these criteria.

Bertens: "What is required is the development of a clear and specific set of internationally agreed guideli nes for intervention, outlining as precisely as possible under what cir cumstances intervention may be al lowed. Timely action at an appro priate level may reduce the scale of intervention needed to deal with a particular situation. That, basically, is the intention of my report".