ХУМАНИТАРНА ИНТЕРВЕНЦИЈА И ДАНАШЊЕ МЕЂУНАРОДНО ПРАВО

In this paper the author analyzes the question of the humanitarian intervention which was especially actual in the XIX century. This institution has a special position in the contemporary international law, too. Humanitarian intervention finds itself nowdays among the measures for protection of the rights of a niass of people, because individual rights of man on the universal plane come under the paragraph 7, Article 2 of the United Nations Çhàrter. The protection of the rights of man has had a long tradition and it is thought that Vittoria in the XVI century was the first one to explain this institution of protection. But, three centuries had to pass untill this protection was implemented. Humanitarian intervention represented the first measure; from the XIX century it changed many of its characteristics, but it survived as one device for the protection of the rights of man. This view, is opposite to the standpoints of Dahin, Sibert and Verdoodt, who stated, thought not explicitly, that the humanitarian intervention was practised only in the XIX century, and that later on it was superseded by some other devices {for example, conventions, on the rights of man). The changes of the characteristics of the humanitarian intervention during its applying can be summarized on the following way. First of all, evolution of this institution can be traced on the example of the evolution of the subject of protection. It is no more the protection of one's own citizens in foreign countries, nor different minorities in particular countries (Guggenheim), but of all the people living on the particular state territory. Humanitarian intervention is practised even in order to protect the citizens' rights violated by their own state (Bartos, von der Heydte, Sauer, Ver dross). Active subjects of this protection of the rights of people are no more individual states, as it was the case in the XIX and even XX century, but the organized international community. Though the organized international community should have exclusive right to intervention, international practice gives us contrary examples (the intervention of the USA in the Dominican Republic and Congo). The ground for this kind of intervention had an evolution of its own. At the beginning, the ground for undertaking of such measures was violation of ius naturalis (Crotius), later on it was violation of the principles of the human civilization (Arntz), and - violation of certain rights of people (Fauchille). Nowdays there