Criteria for Prescribing Coercion in case of Gross and Widespread Violation of the Ethical Foundations of Human Rights

Background: Observance of human rights standards and adherence to ethical principles and foundations prevents the vulnerability of governments to foreign decisions and guarantees the independence of countries in a world where interdependence is one of its characteristics. Governments, while having legal legitimacy, must also enjoy moral legitimacy. Otherwise, international organizations and other governments are under pressure from the international community due to the statements of official human rights organizations. This pressure can even go so far as to force a human rights abuser to comply with the relevant rules and ethics. Today, international law prohibits threats and the use of force in international relations, and calls on member states of the United Nations to refrain from threatening and using force against political independence and territorial integrity of other countries. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the criteria for prescribing the use of force in the event of a gross and widespread violation of human rights and its moral foundations. Conclusion: A review of available sources shows that the imposition of coercion in case of gross and widespread violations of human rights can comply with the documents and regulations of public international law. Failure to uphold the moral foundations of human rights in a way that hurts the conscience of human society will lead to gross violations of human rights. And that could be a license to use force. In addition, the protection of ethical standards such as protection of human dignity, legitimate defense and the maintenance of international peace and security can be considered as a reason for resorting to force, and in such circumstances, only the Security Council can issue a permit for the use of force.