No description available.

The context for this work is set by the proliferation of intrastate conflicts and the international legal debate of humanitarian intervention. The thesis specifically addresses the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as formulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The objective is to assess the present quality of R2P as a concept of international law. Five components of the R2P framework are discussed: the primary responsibility of every state to protect its population from large-scale killings and large-scale ethnic cleansing; the right of other states to collective humanitarian intervention through the United Nations; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention without prior Security Council authorization; the responsibility of the international community to take military action; and the criteria for external military involvement. Methodologically, the analysis is grounded in the dominant theory of legal positivism and its doctrine of sources, which requires notably an analysis of treaties and customary international law. An ethical theory is devised and applied, however, to remedy inadequacies of a strictly positivist method that sets out to determine international law solely on the basis of hard facts. These ethical considerations serve as a background theory to provide guidance in difficult cases of treaty or customary law analysis, and they fill gaps in positive international law as legally binding “principles of ethical law”. In conclusion, the individual components of R2P differ in terms of their legal status and the degree to which it can be explained by the traditional posivist approach to international law. The primary responsibility of every state has become accepted as a hard norm of international customary law; the right of collective humanitarian intervention is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention has become part of the international legal system as a “principle of ethical law”; the residual responsibility of the international community is a principle of “legal soft law”; finally, positive international law defines no criteria delineating the permissible and required use of force for the protection of foreign populations.

The context for this work is set by the proliferation of intrastate conflicts and the international legal debate of humanitarian intervention. The thesis specifically addresses the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as formulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The objective is to assess the present quality of R2P as a concept of international law. Five components of the R2P framework are discussed: the primary responsibility of every state to protect its population from large-scale killings and large-scale ethnic cleansing; the right of other states to collective humanitarian intervention through the United Nations; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention without prior Security Council authorization; the responsibility of the international community to take military action; and the criteria for external military involvement. Methodologically, the analysis is grounded in the dominant theory of legal positivism and its doctrine of sources, which requires notably an analysis of treaties and customary international law. An ethical theory is devised and applied, however, to remedy inadequacies of a strictly positivist method that sets out to determine international law solely on the basis of hard facts. These ethical considerations serve as a background theory to provide guidance in difficult cases of treaty or customary law analysis, and they fill gaps in positive international law as legally binding “principles of ethical law”. In conclusion, the individual components of R2P differ in terms of their legal status and the degree to which it can be explained by the traditional posivist approach to international law. The primary responsibility of every state has become accepted as a hard norm of international customary law; the right of collective humanitarian intervention is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention has become part of the international legal system as a “principle of ethical law”; the residual responsibility of the international community is a principle of “legal soft law”; finally, positive international law defines no criteria delineating the permissible and required use of force for the protection of foreign populations.

The context for this work is set by the proliferation of intrastate conflicts and the international legal debate of humanitarian intervention. The thesis specifically addresses the concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as formulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The objective is to assess the present quality of R2P as a concept of international law. Five components of the R2P framework are discussed: the primary responsibility of every state to protect its population from large-scale killings and large-scale ethnic cleansing; the right of other states to collective humanitarian intervention through the United Nations; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention without prior Security Council authorization; the responsibility of the international community to take military action; and the criteria for external military involvement. Methodologically, the analysis is grounded in the dominant theory of legal positivism and its doctrine of sources, which requires notably an analysis of treaties and customary international law. An ethical theory is devised and applied, however, to remedy inadequacies of a strictly positivist method that sets out to determine international law solely on the basis of hard facts. These ethical considerations serve as a background theory to provide guidance in difficult cases of treaty or customary law analysis, and they fill gaps in positive international law as legally binding “principles of ethical law”. In conclusion, the individual components of R2P differ in terms of their legal status and the degree to which it can be explained by the traditional posivist approach to international law. The primary responsibility of every state has become accepted as a hard norm of international customary law; the right of collective humanitarian intervention is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter; a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention has become part of the international legal system as a “principle of ethical law”; the residual responsibility of the international community is a principle of “legal soft law”; finally, positive international law defines no criteria delineating the permissible and required use of force for the protection of foreign populations. / Law, Faculty of / Graduate

This essay is a type of case study, it examines if intervention in Kosovo were in accordance with humanitarian intervention criteria. This study gives an understanding that intervention may sometime worsen condition for the people it wants to rescue, and that inability to address humanitarian intervention prevails in diffuse victory. The purpose of this essay is to examine the Kosovo conflict and the approach of humanitarian intervention in 24 March, 1999.  The approach made by NATO was seen as a new international phenomenon that sought to protect values of human rights. The results of this study pose doubt to this notion; it reflects that the intervention rested not only on humanitarian grounds. The most important aspect of humanitarian intervention is promoting security for the people it wants to rescue. The results shows that NATO’s intervention in short term failed to provide security; it is shown that the air campaign had little impact at the beginning prevailing only after much damage and suffering has been done. The result also shows that failure to adopt the issue of Kosovo more adequately at an earlier stage on the international agenda resulted in the ''welfare'' of NATO's intervention. Despite the consequences of NATO’s action, situation prevailed for the better outcome for the Kosovar-Albanian people than what might have been has intervention been absent. FRY: s deliberative plan of expelling the Kosovo-Albanian to the last one would have been finalized if intervention would have been absent.

The concept of compliance in international law remains amongst the most significant and, at the same time, the most perplexing of questions. The significance of compliance is highlighted in certain spheres of international law that deal with specific extraordinary circumstances. This is particularly true with respect to international humanitarian law, which is applicable during periods of armed conflict. The importance of ensuring and improving compliance with international humanitarian law is clearly expressed in the opening Article of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977, in which the High Contracting Parties undertake to both "respect" and "ensure respect" for these instruments. This thesis is derived from a conviction that compliance with international humanitarian norms is more efficiently ensured through implementation, rather than enforcement mechanisms. However, it only ventures a critique of the appropriateness of military intervention as one of the mechanisms most frequently used to enforce humanitarian rules in the past decade of armed conflicts. The hypothesis this thesis postulates is that the recourse to armed force to ensure respect for international humanitarian law is at cross-purposes with the body of these rules. This statement is assessed against the Security Council's military humanitarian intervention in civil conflicts. It is suggested that the validity of the Council's decisions on humanitarian intervention hinges upon two equally determinative criteria: legality and legitimacy. The hypothesis of the thesis questions both the legality and legitimacy of the Security Council's authorized military humanitarian intervention in armed conflicts. The underlying purpose of the thesis is thus to expand the parameters of theoretical discussions about compliance in the context of international humanitarian law from a jurisprudential perspective.

I have analyzed humanitarian intervention within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), particularly in relation to the three statements of my thesis. First, the conceptual aspect of humanitarian is discussed in regards to the definition of sovereignty fostered by the norm, and limitations and constraints on the practice. Secondly, inadequacy of the Chapter VII of the UN Charter to understand the nature and dynamics of conflicts today is dealt and whether the gap is looked up to. Third, the partnership with regional organizations and agencies as imagined by the norm is discussed as to find out whether this approach takes real politics in its consideration about conflict solution. Underneath this split analysis lies the single purpose of understanding humanitarian intervention under the light of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Thesis (M. A.)--University of Canterbury, 2006. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 202-214). Also available via the World Wide Web.

No description available.

No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted