Why International Law is Not Helping to Solve the Darfur Crisis

Sudan announced yesterday that it would agree to a U.N.-led peacekeeping force operated in cooperation with the African Union. The U.N.-led force of 19,000 will eventually be deployed in 2008. No one is getting overly excited about the prospects of this U.N.-led force, and I don’t think it is quite yet the solution to the Darfur crisis. Still, it is something.

But the larger picture: notice how international law acts in ways that make a solution to this crisis harder, not easier, to achieve. An effective outside intervention by Western military powers (e.g. the U.S., U.K., France) is probably illegal (say most international lawyers) unless China and Russia consent via the Security Council or Sudan consents (don’t hold your breath). So we instead get a hodgepodge of limited peacekeeping forces who do not have a mandate to force an end to the conflict. Meanwhile, an effective negotiated peace agreement may still be undercut by the outstanding ICC arrest warrants for Sudan government ministers. What should a good liberal internationalist do? Nothing, I guess.