Sovereignty, Just War Theory, and the Origins of Humanitarian Intervention: The 1827 Greek War of Independence in Light of Responsibility to Protect
Abstract
<p>Humanitarian Intervention in the Greek War of Independence, 1827</p> <h2>Historical Context and Foundations of Humanitarian Intervention</h2> <p>The Greek War of Independence (1821–1832) represents one of the earliest cases in modern history where humanitarian intervention was employed to protect civilians suffering under Ottoman rule. Violence soon rose to alarming levels. The Ottomans massacred Greeks, enslaved populations, and perpetrated systematic atrocities against the Greek population by 1827. The intervention established a foundation for subsequent humanitarian operations through the realization that the international community could intervene to safeguard civilians when a sovereign state failed to do so. The Battle of Navarino marked a decisive naval engagement in which foreign forces joined the Greek struggle. Thus, the Greek War of Independence provides valuable insight into principles later formalized in doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), particularly concerning sovereignty and humanitarian intervention.</p> <h2>Moral and Legal Justifications for Intervention</h2> <p>The justification for the 1827 intervention was grounded in a combination of moral obligation and strategic interest. European support emerged partly in response to widespread reports of atrocities committed by Ottoman forces. James Turner Johnson argues that sovereignty has historically entailed not only authority but also responsibility to protect populations within a state’s domain, a concept that was evolving during this period (). In the Greek case, many Europeans believed the Ottoman Empire had forfeited its sovereign legitimacy because it failed to protect, and instead harmed, the Greek population.</p> <p>This reasoning aligns with just war theory, which maintains that a state engaging in severe violations of human rights, such as large-scale massacres or genocidal practices, weakens its claim to absolute sovereignty. Michael Walzer’s framework for humanitarian intervention similarly contends that intervention may become morally obligatory when a government directly harms its own people (). Based on documented brutality toward Greek civilians, intervention was widely perceived in Europe as morally defensible and possibly necessary. Britain, France, and Russia navigated the tension between sovereignty and humanitarian principles, prioritizing civilian protection despite longstanding norms against interference in domestic affairs.</p> <h2>Political, Religious, and Geostrategic Drivers of Intervention</h2> <p>The humanitarian crisis in Greece emerged from a complex combination of political oppression, religious identity, and cultural affiliation. Ottoman governance imposed restrictive measures that intensified following the Greek declaration of independence in 1821. The Ottoman response included widespread killings, enslavement, sexual violence, and displacement. Although humanitarian concern was significant, religious and cultural solidarity also shaped European engagement. The Greeks, predominantly Orthodox Christians with historical and cultural ties to Europe, were perceived as resisting an oppressive empire. This framing contributed to increased public sympathy and political pressure for intervention.</p> <p>Mary Kaldor’s concept of “new wars,” though articulated in a modern context, helps interpret identity-based violence evident in the Greek conflict, where entire populations were targeted on religious and cultural grounds (). The conflict was portrayed not merely as political rebellion but as civilizational and religious persecution, strengthening European support. Additionally, power politics played a central role, as Britain, France, and Russia sought to expand influence within weakening Ottoman territories. Humanitarian motives, religious empathy, and geostrategic interests collectively shaped the intervention narrative, presenting it as both a moral imperative and a strategic opportunity.</p> <h2>Military Intervention and the Battle of Navarino</h2> <p>The military dimension of the intervention was decisive. British, French, and Russian naval forces intervened directly in the Battle of Navarino, destroying the Ottoman-Egyptian fleet and shifting the balance of power in favor of the Greeks. This engagement signified formal multinational commitment to the Greek cause and demonstrated that external military force could alter the trajectory of a humanitarian crisis.</p> <p>The strategic use of force established an early precedent for humanitarian military intervention, where armed action became a legitimate means of civilian protection when diplomacy proved insufficient. The Greek intervention illustrated that military engagement, when coordinated and limited in objective, could support civilian protection without transitioning into prolonged occupation. This model resembles later multinational peacekeeping operations in which force is applied primarily to restrain oppressive actors rather than to pursue territorial control.</p> <h2>Lessons for Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect</h2> <p>The Greek War of Independence provides enduring lessons regarding the balance between sovereignty and civilian protection. One key lesson is that sovereignty may be reconsidered when a government commits sustained violence against its population. Multilateral intervention demonstrated that coordinated international action could pressure oppressive regimes without destabilizing the broader European order.</p> <p>The case anticipates contemporary debates surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which asserts that the international community bears responsibility when states fail to safeguard their citizens. However, critics questioned whether the Greek intervention was purely humanitarian or partially motivated by political advantage. As Johnson suggests, clearer criteria are necessary to determine when sovereignty may be overridden to prevent abuse under the guise of humanitarian concern (). The Greek experience illustrates that sovereignty is conditional upon a state’s fulfillment of its protective duties.</p> <h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>The 1827 humanitarian intervention in the Greek War of Independence stands as a foundational example of international action taken to protect civilians from state violence. Analysis of its moral justifications, strategic motivations, military execution, and long-term implications demonstrates its significance in shaping modern humanitarian intervention principles. The involvement of Britain, France, and Russia underscores the notion that when states fail in their duty to protect citizens, international actors may perceive intervention as both legitimate and necessary. Lessons derived from the Greek case continue to inform contemporary practices of structured, cooperative, and morally grounded humanitarian intervention.</p>