Download Free Norm Dilemmas In Humanitarian Intervention Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Norm Dilemmas In Humanitarian Intervention and write the review.

NATO, an organisation brought together to function as an anti-communist alliance, faced existential questions after the unexpected collapse of the USSR at the beginning of the 1990s. Intervention in the conflict in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 gave it a renewed sense of purpose and a redefining of its core mission. Abe argues that an impetus for this change was the norm dilemma that the conflict in Bosnia represented. On the one hand a state which oversaw the massacre of its civilians was in breach of international norms, but on the other hand intervention by outside states would breach the norms of sovereign integrity and non-use of force. NATO, as an international governance organisation, thus became a vehicle for avoiding this kind of dilemma. A detailed case study of NATO during the Bosnian war, this book explores how the differing views and preferences among the Western states on the intervention in Bosnia were reconciled as they agreed on the outline of NATO’s reform. It examines detailed decision-making processes in Britain, France, Germany and the USA. In particular Abe analyses why conflicting norms led to an emphasis on conflict prevention capacity, rather than simply on armed intervention capacity.
An interdisciplinary approach to humanitarian intervention by experts in law, politics, and ethics.
Since Somalia, the international community has found itself changing its view of humanitarian intervention. Operations designed to alleviate suffering and achieve peace sometimes produce damaging results. The United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, military and civilian agencies alike find themselves in the midst of confusion and weakness where what they seek are clarity and stability. Competing needs, rights, and values can obscure even the best international efforts to quell violence and assuage crises of poverty. More attention must be paid to the complexity of issues and moral dilemmas involved. This volume of original essays by international policy leaders, practitioners, and scholars brings together insights into the conflicting moral pressures present in different kinds of interventions ranging from Rwanda and Somalia to Haiti, Cambodia, and Bosnia. From their various cultural and professional perspectives the authors cover issues of human rights, sanctions, arms trade, refugees, HIV, and the media. Together they make the case that, although there are no easy answers, moral reflection and content can improve the quality of decisionmaking and intervention in internal conflicts. Published under the auspices of The International Committee of the Red Cross.
Ten new essays critique the practice armed humanitarian intervention, and the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine that advocates its use under certain circumstances. The contributors investigate the causes and consequences, as well as the uses and abuses, of armed humanitarian intervention. One enduring concern is that such interventions are liable to be employed as a foreign policy instrument by powerful states pursuing geo-political interests. Some of the chapters interrogate how the presence of ulterior motives impact on the moral credentials of armed humanitarian intervention. Others shine a light on the potential adverse effects of such interventions, even where they are motivated primarily by humanitarian concern. The volume also tracks the evolution of the R2P norm, and draws attention to how it has evolved, for better or for worse, since UN member states unanimously accepted it over a decade ago. In some respects the norm has been distorted to yield prescriptions, and to impose constraints, fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the R2P idea. This gives us all the more reason to be cautious of unwarranted optimism about humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect.
Despite efforts by the UN in the past two decades, the world has seen numerous intrastate conflicts emerge. Immediate worldwide reporting of such atrocities, evoking empathy for the plight of others, has led to an unseen measure of objection to repressive treatment, and the excuse of sovereignty as a defense against inhumane actions is being challenged. The relevance and importance of this topic is reflected in the origins of humanitarian intervention and the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's 2001 report titled The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the United Nations' (UN) subsequent adoption of the report at the World Summit in 2005. This thesis uses the constructivist approach to norms and norm development to investigate whether a norm of humanitarian intervention has emerged in the international system that is shaping the behavior of states. It proposes that norms develop in a three-stage life cycle. I suggest that the norm of humanitarian intervention, since the end of the Cold War, has developed in a manner that was initially consistent with the norm-life cycle, but more recently has deviated from the life cycle. This thesis seeks to explain why this is the case and discuss the implications of the norm of humanitarian intervention for international society.
Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict Studies, Security, grade: A (American System), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, language: English, abstract: The research paper sets out to explore the motivations behind Security Council Resolution (SCR) 688 on the internal civilian situation in Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991 embodying the jump-start for the implementation of the today well-known concept of multilateral humanitarian interventions with the international community intervening in a states' domestic affairs on humanitarian grounds. Thereby, the puzzle surrounding the document evolves around the question of its content's legitimacy with view to international law and political implications, figuring a rather grey area which, however, had a tremendous impact on future actions, commitments and reasoning applied by the international community. Thus, the central questions the paper addresses in this regard relate to the debate on the impact of norms as a lock-in mechanism in international treaty law reflecting on how and why at exactly this point in time a new principle respectively doctrine was born. For this purpose the examination of the intertwining of systemic changes in the world system with the international community's moral convictions, political inferences and the forms of legalization chosen will shed a light on the origination, the content and impacts of SCR 688 supporting the creation of a new world order. Thereby, special emphasis has been put on the political reasoning in the Security Council of the United Nations as well as on the three dimensions of legalization: precision, obligation and delegation. The findings have drawn attention to how SCR 688 served as a precedence for all multilateral humanitarian interventions leading to a change in the conception of state sovereignty and the raise of a moral conviction of a "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) by the internation
Military intervention in a conflict without a reasonable prospect of success is unjustifiable, especially when it is done in the name of humanity. Couched in the debate on the responsibility to protect civilians from violence and drawing on traditional 'just war' principles, the centralpremise of this book is that humanitarian military intervention can be justified as a policy option only if decision makers can be reasonably sure that intervention will do more good than harm. This book asks, 'Have past humanitarian military interventions been successful?' It defines success as saving lives and sets out a methodology for estimating the number of lives saved by a particular military intervention. Analysis of 17 military operations in six conflict areas that were thedefining cases of the 1990s-northern Iraq after the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor-shows that the majority were successful by this measure. In every conflict studied, however, some military interventions succeeded while others failed, raising the question, 'Why have some past interventions been more successful than others?' This book argues that the central factors determining whether a humanitarian intervention succeeds are theobjectives of the intervention and the military strategy employed by the intervening states. Four types of humanitarian military intervention are offered: helping to deliver emergency aid, protecting aid operations, saving the victims of violence and defeating the perpetrators of violence. Thefocus on strategy within these four types allows an exploration of the political and military dimensions of humanitarian intervention and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four types.Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic humanrights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is widely heralded as a new norm in international relations and has become a primary ethical language in international politics. That R2P represents a normative advance is widely assumed, and the overwhelming focus for R2P supporters is how to improve its implementation. Whether R2P should be implemented is rarely asked. In contrast, I argue that R2P suffers from severe normative and theoretical flaws that undermine its desirability as an international political project. To bring these flaws to light, this dissertation analyzes the discourse of humanitarian intervention/R2P by identifying its underlying concepts and categories and demonstrating how this field of knowledge has been constituted by relations of power, specifically structures of global inequality.First, I demonstrate that R2P and humanitarian intervention use two historical narratives to justify their legitimacy and necessity. These stories, which involve the historical emergence of international law, including the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, and the emergence of the norm of humanitarian intervention, largely exclude the historical experiences of those in the global South, rendering both narratives theoretically and empirically flawed. Second, R2P relies on the idea of community, as evidenced by its calls for an international community imbued with responsibility and claims that this community has accepted R2P. In contrast, I show that the existence and character of the 'international community' itself is problematic and that by marginalizing perspectives from the South, the R2P discourse actually undermines the formation of such a community. Third, I argue that R2P's invocation of responsibility again works against its intention of instantiating global responsibility. By grammatically linking sovereignty and responsibility, human rights become relevant within a state and not in international practices, making Western states responsible for protection but not for their own harms. Moreover, this problematization reduces all events to an intervention/non-intervention binary frame, which lends support to harmful military interventions and marginalizes other humanitarian options. In response to these severe limitations, I offer an alternative to R2P, which I term international responsiveness, that retains a concern for the well-being of those beyond our borders but challenges rather than reinforces structures of global inequality.
The question of when or if a nation should intervene in another country’s affairs is one of the most important concerns in today’s volatile world. Taking John Stuart Mill’s famous 1859 essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” as his starting point, international relations scholar Michael W. Doyle addresses the thorny issue of when a state’s sovereignty should be respected and when it should be overridden or disregarded by other states in the name of humanitarian protection, national self-determination, or national security. In this time of complex social and political interplay and increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, Doyle reinvigorates Mill’s principles for a new era while assessing the new United Nations doctrine of responsibility to protect. In the twenty-first century, intervention can take many forms: military and economic, unilateral and multilateral. Doyle’s thought-provoking argument examines essential moral and legal questions underlying significant American foreign policy dilemmas of recent years, including Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
How should the international community react when a government transgresses humanitarian norms and violates the human rights of its own nationals? And where does the responsibility lie to protect people from such acts of violation? In this profound study, Fabian Klose unites a team of leading scholars to investigate some of the most complex and controversial debates regarding the legitimacy of protecting humanitarian norms and universal human rights by non-violent and violent means. Charting the development of humanitarian intervention from its origins in the nineteenth century through to the present day, the book surveys the philosophical and legal rationales of enforcing humanitarian norms by military means, and how attitudes to military intervention on humanitarian grounds have changed over the course of three centuries. Drawing from a wide range of disciplines, the authors lend a fresh perspective to contemporary dilemmas using case studies from Europe, the United States, Africa and Asia.