This book explores attempts to develop a more acceptable account of the principles and mechanisms associated with humanitarian intervention, which has become known as the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ ...(R2P).
Cases of genocide and mass violence have raised endless debates about the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention to save innocent lives. Since the humanitarian tragedies in Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, states have begun advocating a right to undertake interventions to stop mass violations of human rights from occurring. Their central concern rests with whether the UN’s current regulations on the use of force meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world, and in particular the demands of addressing humanitarian emergencies. International actors tend to agree that killing civilians as a necessary part of state formation is no longer acceptable, nor is standing by idly in the face of massive violations of human rights. And yet, respect for the sovereign rights of states remains central among the ordering principles of the international community. How can populations affected by egregious human rights violations be protected? How can the legal constraints on the use of force and respect for state sovereignty be reconciled with the international community’s willingness and readiness to take action in such instances? And more importantly, how can protection be offered when the Security Council, which is responsible for authorizing the use of force when threats to international peace and security occur, is paralyzed? The author addresses these issues, arguing that R2P is the best framework available at present to move the humanitarian intervention debate forward.
This book will be of interest to students of the responsibility to protect, war and conflict studies, human security, international organisations, security studies and IR in general.
1. Introduction: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect Part 1: R2P’s Theoretical Weight 2. The Responsibility to Protect: Sovereignty and Human Rights 3. Who Authorizes Interventions? 4. Who Conducts Interventions? Part 2: R2P’s Practical Dimensions 5. From Concept to Norm 6. From Normative Development to Implementation 7. Conclusion. Bibliography
Cristina Gabriela Badescu teaches peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto, Canada. Her research interests include international relations, human security, transitional justice, and the responsibility to protect.
"Christina Gabriela Badescu’s work provides a meticulous analysis of the debate over humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. The author takes the reader by the hand and carefully walks them through the subject matter. From this, a systematic, step-by-step analysis is developed, which provides an accomplished overview of the issues involved. ... the volume provides a superb over-view and is a book that I recommend strongly to those both familiar and unfamiliar with all things R2P." – Adrian M. Gallagher, University of Leicester, Political Studies Review, Vol 10:3, Sept. 2012
"A solid, educational contribution to the burgeoning literature on the theory and practice of the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine... Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above." -- P. J. Stoett, CHOICE (February 2012)
As cochair (Evans) and member (Thakur) of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and principal authors of its 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), we ...read Robert Pape's article with great interest-but also with growing surprise and ultimately considerable disappointment. Intervention can be studied as an analytical concept or as a political project, and Pape's article clearly falls into the latter category. His purpose is to advance his so-called pragmatic standard of humanitarian intervention against the standard of the genocide convention (which, in his view, sets the bar much too high) and R2P (which he thinks is loose and permissive, setting the bar much too low). For an article proposing to advance humanitarian intervention as a political project, however, it is remarkably disconnected from political reality.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, INZLJ, IZUM, KILJ, NMLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK, ZRSKP
A look at the duty of nations to
protect human rights beyond borders, why it has failed in practice,
and what can be done about it The idea that states share a
responsibility to shield people ...everywhere from atrocities is
presently under threat. Despite some early twenty-first century
successes, including the 2005 United Nations endorsement of the
Responsibility to Protect, the project has been placed into
jeopardy due to catastrophes in such places as Syria, Myanmar, and
Yemen; resurgent nationalism; and growing global antagonism. In
Sharing Responsibility , Luke Glanville seeks to diagnose
the current crisis in international protection by exploring its
long and troubled history. With attention to ethics, law, and
politics, he measures what possibilities remain for protecting
people wherever they reside from atrocities, despite formidable
challenges in the international arena. With a focus on Western
natural law and the European society of states, Glanville shows
that the history of the shared responsibility to protect is marked
by courageous efforts, as well as troubling ties to Western
imperialism, evasion, and abuse. The project of safeguarding
vulnerable populations can undoubtedly devolve into blame shifting
and hypocrisy, but can also spark effective burden sharing among
nations. Glanville considers how states should support this
responsibility, whether it can be coherently codified in law, the
extent to which states have embraced their responsibilities, and
what might lead them to do so more reliably in the future.
Sharing Responsibility wrestles with how countries should
care for imperiled people and how the ideal of the responsibility
to protect might inspire just behavior in an imperfect and troubled
world.
This work lays a basic doctrinal foundation as well as suggested applications to consider for resolving the dual security and human rights crises of the DPRK. The three doctrines are the doctrines of ...international humanitarian intervention (“IHI”), the responsibility to protect (“R2P”) and legitimate defense. These doctrines arguably apply most urgently to the DPRK’s gross, systematic human rights violations and security threats — more than they do anywhere else. R2P, IHI and legitimate defense seriously undergird efforts to resolve the DPRK crises., This work lays a basic doctrinal foundation as well as suggested applications to consider for resolving the dual security and human rights crises of the DPRK. The three doctrines are the doctrines of international humanitarian intervention ("IHI"), the responsibility to protect ("R2P") and legitimate defense. These doctrines arguably apply most urgently to the DPRK's gross, systematic human rights violations and security threats more than they do anywhere else. R2P, IHI and legitimate defense seriously undergird efforts to resolve the DPRK crises.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
This book introduces key issues on the use of force while also providing a detailed analysis of technological developments and recent legal discussions in the field.
The author examines areas such as ...support for rebel groups, the concept of humanitarian intervention, the Responsibility to Protect and recent conversations around the fight against the "Islamic State" in a clear and accessible manner, through a thorough presentation of relevant cases and materials.
This book is essential reading for students studying force and its intersection with international law.
While effective control, as formulated in art 7 of the International Law Commission Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, has become recognised as the key criterion to ...attribute conduct in international military operations carried out under the lead of an international organisation, its precise contours remain elusive when applied to concrete scenarios. This article argues that attribution of conduct under the test of effective control can be analysed in causal terms and that such analysis is useful to attribute the conduct of military organs over which control is shared between contributing states and international organisations. In this interpretation, effective control is understood as a causally proximate form of control over a given conduct. Applied to the military context, the analysis clarifies how different forms of military control are relevant to different types of harmful conduct and how they translate in terms of legal control for the purpose of attribution. The article submits that, beyond operational control, control exercised at the organic or strategic levels can also be linked to certain types of harmful conduct, which provides conceptual grounds for attribution of conduct in complex military scenarios.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
While effective control, as formulated in art 7 of the International Law Commission Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, has become recognised as the key criterion to ...attribute conduct in international military operations carried out under the lead of an international organisation, its precise contours remain elusive when applied to concrete scenarios. This article argues that attribution of conduct under the test of effective control can be analysed in causal terms and that such analysis is useful to attribute the conduct of military organs over which control is shared between contributing states and international organisations. In this interpretation, effective control is understood as a causally proximate form of control over a given conduct. Applied to the military context, the analysis clarifies how different forms of military control are relevant to different types of harmful conduct and how they translate in terms of legal control for the purpose of attribution. The article submits that, beyond operational control, control exercised at the organic or strategic levels can also be linked to certain types of harmful conduct, which provides conceptual grounds for attribution of conduct in complex military scenarios.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
A look at the duty of nations to protect human rights beyond borders, why it has failed in practice, and what can be done about it The idea that states share a responsibility to shield people ...everywhere from atrocities is presently under threat. Despite some early twenty-first century successes, including the 2005 United Nations endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect, the project has been placed into jeopardy due to catastrophes in such places as Syria, Myanmar, and Yemen; resurgent nationalism; and growing global antagonism. In Sharing Responsibility, Luke Glanville seeks to diagnose the current crisis in international protection by exploring its long and troubled history. With attention to ethics, law, and politics, he measures what possibilities remain for protecting people wherever they reside from atrocities, despite formidable challenges in the international arena.With a focus on Western natural law and the European society of states, Glanville shows that the history of the shared responsibility to protect is marked by courageous efforts, as well as troubling ties to Western imperialism, evasion, and abuse. The project of safeguarding vulnerable populations can undoubtedly devolve into blame shifting and hypocrisy, but can also spark effective burden sharing among nations. Glanville considers how states should support this responsibility, whether it can be coherently codified in law, the extent to which states have embraced their responsibilities, and what might lead them to do so more reliably in the future. Sharing Responsibility wrestles with how countries should care for imperiled people and how the ideal of the responsibility to protect might inspire just behavior in an imperfect and troubled world.
This book explains why there is a pronounced disjuncture between R2P's habitual invocation and its actual influence, and why it will not make the transformative progress its proponents claim.Rather ...than disputing that R2P is a norm, or declaring that norms are insignificant, Hehir engages with post- positivist constructivist accounts on the role of norms to demonstrate first, that the efficacy of a norm is not directly related to the extent to which it is proliferated or invoked, and second, that in the post-institutionalization phase, norms undergo both contestation and (potentially regressive) reinterpretation. This volume analyses the evolution of R2P, and demonstrates that it has been steadily circumscribed and co-opted, so that today it has no power to meaningfully influence the behaviour of states. It is essential reading for academic audiences in the disciplines of International Relations and International Law.
Full text
Available for:
FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
The United Nations Security Council-sanctioned intervention in Libya in March 2011 was heralded by many observers as evidence of the efficacy of the responsibility to protect (R2P). According to ...Gareth Evans, the intervention constituted "a textbook case of the R2P norm working exactly as it was supposed to." This ostensibly "unprecedented moment" led many to predict the dawn of a "new era."3 United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon summed up the mood: "By now it should be clear to all that the Responsibility to Protect has arrived."
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, INZLJ, IZUM, KILJ, NMLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK, ZRSKP
