The terminology of ‘never again’ has been studied in Sociology, Cultural Studies and History, yet remains neglected in International Relations. This is despite its centrality in debates over ...humanitarian intervention, the Responsibility to Protect and mass atrocity prevention. To foster a conversation over the term’s use, this article uses an interdisciplinary approach to show how the meaning of ‘never again’ has changed over time. Building on this, we analyse five real-world problems: (1) the quantitative problem, (2) the nuclear problem, (3) the regime change problem, (4) the weak state problem and (5) the P5 problem. We find the blanket call of ‘never again’ oversimplifies the complexity of mass atrocity prevention and creates an unrealistic goal. Going forward, we call on those invoking the phrase to explain what they mean by it and why they are using it as part of a broader reassessment of the term’s use in International Relations.
This article examines how ASEAN has reacted to the military coup in Myanmar. The February 1, 2021 coup was appalling because Myanmar was progressing toward democracy especially since Suu Kyi’s ...National League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory in the 2015 general election. This article shows that although ASEAN tries to adopt ‘constructive engagement’ towards Myanmar, its approaches remain ineffective because it basically still maintains the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of its member states. ASEAN must recognize that regional stability depends on respect for democracy, human rights, and rule of law within each member states. This article argues that ASEAN needs to transform its ineffective approaches toward more active response by gradually internalizing the new concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) and actively put pressures on the military to restore democracy in the country.
This article argues that, even in an emergent realist international order which downgrades commitments to human rights, states will intervene to halt genocide. These interventions are more likely to ...be military in nature, carried out by regional and local actors and motivated by self-interested security concerns.
Abstract
Drawing on history and International Relations, this article considers how states might respond to genocide in a more realist, post-liberal international order (LIO). It argues that even within an emergent realist international order (RIO) that downgrades normative commitments to fundamental human rights, unchecked genocide will continue to pose a threat to international peace and security and states will be interested in halting it. Within an emergent RIO, many of the non-coercive tools for halting genocide made available by liberal order will be constrained. Yet, scholars have in any case found that where genocidal-type violence has already begun, non-coercive tools are rarely effective (Bellamy and McLoughlin, 2022; Broache and Cronin-Furman, 2021). This article suggests that within an RIO which encourages greater amounts of self-help, regional and local actors will have realpolitik motivations for undertaking military interventions which halt genocides occurring in their neighbourhood. While such dynamics are observable during earlier period of international history, an emergent RIO will also benefit from the persistence of fundamental norms such as the prohibition on genocide. Given these factors, and while it will be highly non-ideal, an emerging RIO might retain the possibility of effectively responding to some genocides.
The Shared Responsibility in International Law series examines the underexplored problem of allocation of responsibilities among multiple states and other actors. The International Law Commission, in ...its work on state responsibility and the responsibility of international organisations, recognised that attribution of acts to one state or organisation does not exclude possible attribution of the same act to another state or organisation, but has provided limited guidance on allocation or reparation. From the new perspective of shared responsibility, this volume reviews the main principles of the law of international responsibility as laid down in the Articles on State Responsibility and the Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations, such as attribution of conduct, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness and reparation. It explores the potential and limitations of current international law in dealing with questions of shared responsibility in areas such as military operations and international environmental law.
The aim of the article is to review the contemporary debate on the concept of Respon-sibility to Protect. Numerous publications concerning R2P are the best illustration of the fact that it is a very ...topical subject. Analysing the doctrinal issues focusing on new challenges for contemporary international law the author focuse on a visible change in the international law paradigm, transformation of moral norm into legal one and the effective use of the instruments of R2P application.
This article investigates the complex relationship between atrocity prevention and other related – yet distinct – norms of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm cluster. It analyses how this ...cluster operates to help states, and other actors, properly discharge their responsibility. Central to the analysis is the realisation that abstractly aligned norms can clash in practice. Based on an extensive analysis of the 67 European Union (EU) documents and statements referring to R2P, and drawing on elite interviews with EU diplomats, we find that atrocity prevention has been ‘grafted’ onto the EU’s other normative commitments – including conflict resolution and democracy promotion – without sufficient acknowledgement of the cluster’s complexity and the need to prioritise atrocity prevention vis-à-vis these other linked norms. We ask whether this framing not only filtered but also diluted the normative power of atrocity prevention, leading to policies that manifestly failed to prevent the genocide that occurred in Myanmar from 2017. We find that the grafting of atrocity prevention onto related yet distinct norms contributed to an underestimation of the threat of genocide and a misplaced faith in the ability of democratic transition to prevent atrocity. However, we also find that factors unrelated to the normative framing of R2P influenced the EU’s willingness and ability to respond to atrocity crimes that occurred in the lead up to the genocide that began in 2017. The article contributes to our understanding of the as yet unstated normative implication of clustering norms and the EU’s implementation of R2P.
Abstract
This article contributes to the burgeoning norms literature in international relations that conceptualizes the norm life cycle as a nonlinear dynamic process that is open to contestation and ...change of "meanings in use." There are limitations to this second generation of norms theory, however, most crucially in the identification of agency and process through which dialogue occurs and change is enacted. This article claims that to conceptualize the move from norm contestation as dialogic process to norm implementation as a process that weaves norms into the fabric of institutions in their day-to-day politics and routine practices, there is a need to bring IR norms theory into a fruitful engagement with sociological theory on lawmaking. Sociolegal approaches account for institutional processes that move toward the firming up of norms even if hard law status is not the formal objective. This article applies a sociolegal framework of the recursivity of lawmaking to better understand the current diversification of responsibility to protect implementation efforts across the UN and at the national level.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a doctrine motivated by good intentions. Yet an overriding concern with the successful consolidation of R2P as a norm, as well as the institutionalisation of ...R2P with academic and policy circles, has led to an excessive focus on the doctrine itself, rather than the atrocities meant to be motivating it. These limitations and shortcomings are examined and subsequently worked through in reference to the 2011 Libyan intervention. It is argued there should be less concern with norm development, and more explicit engagement with the responsibilities that come with supporting the doctrine.
Prohibition of the use of armed force causes most debates in International Law because it is one of the basic principles, the cornerstone of the current international legal order but also one of the ...most controversial issues of International Law. Considering the provisions of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, the qualification of the use of armed force as a wrongful act seems clear. In contrast, the concepts of legality and legitimacy regarding the use of force are often flexible and ambiguous which can lead to discretionary use. The aim of this paper is to analyse different situations in which the use of force is allowed, exploring the theoretical and controversial aspects generated by limiting the practical applications of Articles 51 and 42 of the Charter of the United Nations, the only provisions that allow the use of force if restrictive requirements are met.
PDF
