Citation

Waters M. J. Peace Res. 1986; 23(3): 229-246.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1986, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338602300303

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The military intervention of Grenada, October 25, 1983 came after years of increasing strain between the interventionists, especially the US, and Grenada. Justification for using force by the US and its Ca ribbean partners was based on 1) claims of undue increase in military power in Grenada, in comparison with other Caribbean states, 2) the non-civil libertarian and socialist character of Grenada's PRG gov ernment which brought it into close and increasing dependency on Cuba and the Soviet Union, 3) the use of force by Maurice Bishop and his NJM movement to obtain power, and 4) the brutality of his liqui dation. Also 5) the claim that the OECS organization was a bona fide regional organization operating within the scope of authority of article 52 of the UN charter. It thereby had the right to seek help from others in the fullfillment of their treaty obligations. The US in particular stressed this point plus, 6) the claim that the Governor-General invited outside assistance. Most international law scholars who ex pressed views condemned the action on legal grounds, but supporters claimed that the interventionists were within their rights based on the above arguments, plus the view that various human rights declara tions and treaties support intervention when human rights are violated, and that some treaties require it. This paper explores these claims and traces the relevant writings of scholars over several centuries, most of which refute the supporters' arguments. Interventionary policies are found to be illegal in the post WWII period, with Webster's classic argument that 'instant and overwhelming necessity' permitting 'no moment of deliberation' may provide an exception. The UN, OAS and OECS treaty provisions are ana lyzed and found to have been violated. Comparisons with other rescue missions are found inappropriate as a precedent. Finally, interventionist arguments based on human rights are refuted by examining all appropriate declarations and treaties, none of which are found to authorize enforcement action.