GC: n

S: CETIM – https://www.cetim.ch/wp-content/uploads/report_12.pdf (last access: 10 May 2024); Springer – https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-26894-8_7 (last access: 10 May 2024).

N: 1. – humanitarian (adj): As a noun by 1794 in the theological sense “one who affirms the humanity of Christ but denies his pre-existence and divinity,” from humanity + suffix from unitarian, etc.; see humanism. Meaning “philanthropist, one who advocates or practices human action to solve social problems” is from 1842, originally disparaging, with a suggestion of excess.
As an adjective by 1834 in the theological sense “affirming the humanity or human nature of Christ;” by 1855 as “having regard for the broad interests of humanity.”

– interference (n): 1783, “intermeddling,” from interfere on model of difference, etc. In physics, in reference to the mutual action of waves on each other, from 1802, coined in this sense by English scientist Dr. Thomas Young (1773-1829). Telephoning (later broadcasting) sense is from 1887. In chess from 1913; in U.S. football from 1894.

2. As defined in numerous writings, the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) is a “more complete” formulation of the theory of “humanitarian interference”*, or the “right to interfere”, considered by some to represent one of the most recent evolutions in international public law since 2000. By virtue of this theory, a state’s sovereignty is subordinate to the respect of the fundamental rights of its population. Some have considered such an idea innovative, some even proclaiming that it heralds the advent of a new international humanitarian order.

3. In the second half of the nineteenth century, French-language writers used the term intervention d’humanité to speak of an intervention of “civilized nations” in “barbaric” countries, particularly the Ottoman Empire. English-language writers initially referred to such action as intervention based on humanity, but this rapidly evolved into the simpler term “humanitarian intervention”. When this English term was carried over into the latter half of the twentieth century, English-language writers made no distinction between what it ordinarily refers to now (intervention to bring life-sustaining aid) and what it had earlier referred to (armed intervention on the pretext of protecting the Christian populations suffering under “barbaric” Ottoman rule). French-language writers – including the author – now use intervention humanitaire in the same sense in which it is used in English, but the original intervention d’humanité remains for the past actions of “civilized nations” against those considered “barbaric”. The idea behind the original term, however, is more relevant today than ever, namely “the right to protect” by using armed force and absent any consent on the part of the state concerned. This new incarnation of what amounts in practice to intervention d’humanité is what the French now call ingérence humanitaire, well rendered in English as simply “humanitarian meddling”. Throughout this essay, however, the term used to translate the author’s ingérence humanitaire is that used consistently by the International Committee of the Red Cross, humanitarian interference. – Translator’s note.

S: 1. Etymonline – https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=humanitarian+interference (last access: 10 May 2024). 2&3. CETIM – https://www.cetim.ch/wp-content/uploads/report_12.pdf (last access: 10 May 2024).

SYN: humanitarian meddling

S: CETIM – https://www.cetim.ch/wp-content/uploads/report_12.pdf (last access: 10 May 2024)

CR: humanitarian, humanitarian intervention, right of interference.