The Legality of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention Under International Law: A Theoretical Reconstruction Informed by African State Practice

This dissertation theoretically reconstructs the doctrine of unilateral humanitarian intervention under international law, informed by African state practice and the specific normative environment of the post-R2P era. Unilateral humanitarian intervention, the use of force by one state against another to protect civilians without Security Council authorisation, remains deeply contested in international law, with opinions divided between those who regard it as a customary norm and those who consider it a categorical violation of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force. Drawing on legal philosophy, just war theory, and a systematic analysis of African Union and ECOWAS practice in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic, this research develops an original theory of constrained humanitarian permission that specifies the legal conditions under which unilateral humanitarian intervention may be lawfully undertaken as a last resort. It fills a critical gap in the literature by providing the first theoretically rigorous framework for constrained humanitarian permission grounded specifically in African regional practice rather than Western liberal interventionism. The dissertation empirically examines Security Council deadlock patterns to assess when the constrained humanitarian permission framework would be operationally relevant. Original contributions include the constrained humanitarian permission theory, an African state practice typology on the use of force, and a comparative analysis of unilateral intervention legal justifications across twelve cases. Findings indicate that a constrained permission doctrine is normatively sustainable and consistent with evolving African regional practice. Keywords: humanitarian intervention, use of force, UN Charter, R2P, African state practice.