Description
Humanitarian intervention often faces the challenge of balancing human rights protection with state sovereignty. The risk of regime change resulting from such interventions remains a crucial obstacle, as it often sparks controversy, opposition from the international community, and potential negative consequences. The United Kingdom’s intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 is a notable example of how military force can be employed as a "force for good" to protect civilians. While some view it as a straightforward example, it offers critical lessons on restoring political stability without violating state sovereignty or inciting regime change, thus upholding the principles of international law.
This paper uses process tracing to examine the UK’s involvement in Sierra Leone, examining how its strategy successfully prevented the collapse of the legitimate government, restored order, and supported long-term stability while avoiding regime change. By comparing the UK’s intervention with earlier failed efforts by ECOWAS and the UN, the paper identifies key factors for success and explores how external actors can address humanitarian crises without undermining the legitimacy of local political institutions.
By analysing this case, the paper emphasises how humanitarian interventions can achieve their goals without breaching state sovereignty or triggering regime change. This offers valuable insights for future interventions and ongoing debates on decoupling humanitarian actions from political objectives.
