Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University,2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study exammes, m stages of development, the existing law regarding humanitarian intervention, problems in respect of this law and cases of intervention. More specifically, intervention in human rights abuses not breaching international peace and security but rather posing a so-called threat to peace is examined. This information is used to consider whether more adequate provision can be made regarding circumstances of intervention to stop situations of grave human rights abuses sooner. From the law regarding humanitarian intervention, it is evident that the institution of intervention is illegal under the present UN legal system. Yet, in a time when the human rights culture has become so important that it forms part of the basis of international law, effective intervention is not being authorised by the Security Council. As a result, other actors have been intervening in cases of grave human rights abuses. These interventions need to be appropriate and well managed. Since the protection of human rights is as valid in non-democracies, as in any democratic state form, the study finds that human rights will benefit from dependence on legitimate authority. Attributing more importance to the Uniting for Peace Resolution could expand the role of the General Assembly. Humanitarian intervention also needs to be coupled with a commitment to address the causes of human rights abuses through conflict resolution and social reconstruction. The study concludes with some criteria/guidelines for the establishment of the legitimacy of intervention. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie studie is - binne 'n raamwerk van ontwikkelingstydperke - 'n ondersoek na die bestaande reg aangaande humanitêre ingryping, probleme tenopsigte daarvan en gevalle van ingryping. Veral ingrypings in menseregte-skendings wat nie internasionale vrede en sekuriteit skend nie, maar eerder 'n sogenaamde bedreiging vir vrede is, word ondersoek. Die inligting wat so bekom is, word gebruik om te oordeel of meer gepaste voorsiening gemaak kan word waarvolgens situasies van growwe menseregte-skendings deur ingryping gouer beëindig kan word. Die reg aangaande humanitêre ingryping toon dat ingryping onwettig is in die bestaande regsisteem van die Verenigde Nasies. In 'n tyd waarin menseregte so belangrik geword het dat dit ten grondslag lê van internasionale reg, word effektiewe ingrypings nogtans nie gemagtig deur die Veiligheidsraad nie. Gevolglik gryp ander partye in om teen situasies van growwe menseregte-skendings op te tree. Hierdie ingrypings moet daarom gepas wees en goed bestuur word. Aangesien die beskerming van menseregte net so geldig is in ander staatsvorms as in demokrasieë, bevind die studie dat menseregte sal baat daarby indien dit afhanklik is van legitieme gesag. Voorts kan die rol van die Algemene Vergadering aangaande die beskerming van menseregte uitgebrei word deur groter waarde te heg aan die "Uniting for Peace"-resolusie. Dit is verder nodig dat humanitêre ingryping gekoppel word aan 'n verbintenis om die oorsake van menseregteskendings aan te pak deur konflik-resolusie en sosiale heropbou. Ter afsluiting word riglyne neergelê om te help met die bepaling van die legitimiteit van . . mgrypmg.

<p>The dissertation examines three military interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa which took place in the mid and late 1990s in Rwanda, the DRC and Lesotho. These interventions took place despite high expectations of international and regional peace on the part of most analysts after the collapse of cold war in 1989. However, interstate and intrastate conflicts re-emerged with more intensity than ever before, and sub-Saharan Africa proved to be no exception.</p> <p><br /> The study sets out to analyse the motives and/or causes of military interventions in Rwanda in 1990, the DRC in 1996-7, and the DRC military rebellion and the Lesotho intervention in 1998. In analysing these interventions, the study borrows extensively from the work of dominant security theorists of international relations, predominantly realists who conceptualise international relations as a struggle for power and survival in the anarchic world. The purpose of this analysis is fourfold / firstly, to determine the reasons for military interventions and the extent to which these interventions were conducted on humanitarian grounds / secondly, to investigate the degree to which or not intervening countries were spurred by their national interests / thirdly, to assess the roles of international organisations like Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations, in facilitating these interventions / as well as to evaluate the role of parliaments of intervening countries in authorising or not these military interventions in terms of holding their Executives accountable. In this context, the analysis argues that the intervening countries / Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Namibia, Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe appeared to have used intervention as a realist foreign policy tool in the absence of authorisation from the United Nations and its subordinate bodies such as the OAU and SADC.</p>

The purpose of this thesis is theory development. It begins by evaluating existing explanations of why states undertake humanitarian intervention. Realists argue that states only intervene when their national interests are at stake. Normative scholars argue that states are at times motivated to save foreign citizens. Neither approach adequately accounts for the pattern of post-Cold War state practice. Building from this conclusion, the thesis conducts research based on two propositions derived from an analysis of existing debates: that examining state motive holds promise for elucidating the weaknesses in current approaches and that studying state argumentation can provide insight into state motives. To better investigate state motives, a theoretical framework is developed to explain how motives translate into state decision-making and manifest themselves in state argumentation. By employing process tracing, argumentation analysis, and elite interviews, this framework is applied to three cases: Northern Iraq in 1991, Rwanda in 1994, and East Timor in 1999. Each case study constructs a theoretically informed narrative, assesses debates between states at the United Nations Security Council, and evaluates the consistency between state discourse and state practice. The cases are then used heuristically to identify opportunities for improving existing theory and developing new theory. This yields several conclusions. First, not only do states often possess mixed motives, but the humanitarian impulse also appears in some cases to have been a necessary condition for humanitarian intervention. Second, the norm of humanitarian intervention does not function as a general rule. Rather, it is a cluster of principles derived from just war theory and international law, but also connected to related norms about sovereignty, human rights, and self-determination. Third, state decision-making is a collective process structured by the prevailing post-Cold War institutional and normative context. The thesis concludes by outlining promising avenues of research for better understanding why states respond to some occurrences of mass atrocities and not others.

Thesis advisor: David M. Rasmussen / Following the idea that human rights are anchored in many cultures and find their support in many traditions, the contemporary human rights corpus is a fruit of a long history whose roots can be traced back to different societies in addressing the universal questions of injustice. If one adopts such a historical evolution of human rights, their universality might be affirmed on the assumption that they are coexistent to every human society. This view is, however, challenged by scholars who claim that the current human rights regime does not owe anything to other cultures, since they are essentially Western. The consequence of such an understanding touches the heart of the human rights’ perennial question concerning their universality, and it is the source of the Third World’s critiques. Indeed, if conceptually, culturally and historically, human rights are Western, how do they become universal? This question was first raised by the American Anthropological Association in its now well-known 1947 statement, even before the existing human rights instruments were framed. Today, it has been taken up by some Third World critics. For them, human right movement is an imperialistic swirl of Western liberalism upon other societies under the banner of United States of America that has replaced the former European imperialistic powers such as France and United Kingdom. According to these critics, there is no other area where human rights are imperialistically used by the West than in the so-called humanitarian intervention. Usually evoked as an urgent need to protect human rights, humanitarian intervention is seen as another name for the neo-colonialism in the Third World, as it is carried out by Western Powers against states in the Third World. Two challenges arise from these views. On the one hand, because of their Western origin, human rights are decried as Western and, therefore, they should not be imposed on other cultures. On the other hand, their imperialistic use by the West is an acute difficulty stemming from the global political context after the fall of Communism as a competing ideology with liberalism in 1990s. These challenges affect the theoretical justification as well as the implementation of human rights. For, according to the critics, human rights are purposely framed in liberal terms because they have to pursue and advance the Western project of conquering the whole world. Therefore, they claim, the actual spread of Western liberalism under human rights label is neither incidental nor accidental; it is a continuation of the Western imperialism which started long ago with economic exploitation, slavery and colonization of the rest of the world. Human rights is only a neutral term to translate the same reality. To those who reply that the contemporary human rights regime, starting with Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a fruit of an international group with a diverse background, the critics respond that all of them were trained in the Western culture. And if one presents the role of the local human rights activists in the non-Western world, the critics consider them as Western mercenaries in local colors. That is why, while it springs from the cultural critique, the imperialistic challenge to human rights is a serious one because it attacks the human rights regime in its purpose and in its practice. It does not reject human rights only because they are extrinsic to the non-Western culture –cultural relativism—; rather, human rights are rejected because they are channels of oppression and exploitation as was and has always been the Western imperialism. The question now is: what do human rights become in this case? Is it possible to rescue them from both the cultural critics and imperialistic crusaders? Such a project would aim at maintaining and affirming their historicity as Western, yet showing that they are open to the possibility of being practiced in other cultures and other contexts. That it is the goal of this dissertation whose thesis is that, by domesticating human rights we retrieve the purpose of human rights of protecting and enhancing human dignity and, at the same time, it becomes possible to satisfactorily address the cultural and imperialistic challenges. Indeed, instead of thinking that people adopt and use human rights discourse because they like their individualistic side, the domestication of human rights pays attention to the process through which human rights as moral norms are incorporated in local cultures. Relying on the anthropological works that focus on the way human rights norms are integrated in different cultural contexts, this project endeavors to build a normative account of human rights based on these local practices. Philosophically speaking, domestication of human rights takes up Beitz’s insight of human rights as an emerging practice, and brings it to the beneficiaries of human rights purpose, instead of remaining at the legal level where only states are accepted as credible interlocutors, while they are the most suspected violators of human rights. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

[pt] A indeterminação do conceito de intervenção humanitária é latente na literatura de Relações Internacionais e do Direito. Apesar de o tema intervenção humanitária ter feito parte da agenda internacional no período pós-Guerra Fria, o que tal prática constitui permanece sem consenso. O objetivo do presente trabalho é analisar a problemática da falta de consenso sobre o conceito de intervenção humanitária. Para tanto, serão analisados sete elementos do referido conceito: (i) o agente da intervenção; (ii) a necessidade ou não do uso da força; (iii) a postura do Estado-alvo em relação à ingerência externa; (iv) os beneficiários da intervenção; (v) as violações de direitos humanos que podem dar ensejo a uma intervenção humanitária; (vi) os objetivos da intervenção humanitária; (vii) o momento da intervenção. Em seguida, será analisado o caso do Timor Leste, a fim de demonstrar as implicações da falta de consenso acerca do referido conceito. Espera-se, assim, poder contribuir para o debate sobre o conceito de intervenção humanitária nas doutrinas de Relações Internacionais e do Direito. / [en] The International Relations and Law literature lacks a clear-cut definition of the concept of humanitarian intervention. Even though humanitarian intervention theme has been present in the political agenda of the post-Cold War period, there is no consensus around its meaning. The objective of the present work is to analyze the lack of consensus regarding the concept of humanitarian intervention. In order to achieve this task, we will analyze seven elements of the referred concept: (i) the agent of intervention; (ii) the use of force; (iii) the target State behavior regarding external intervention; (iv) the beneficiaries of intervention; (v) the human rights violations that enable the practice of humanitarian intervention; (vi) the goals of humanitarian intervention; (vii) the moment of intervention. The next step will be to study the East Timor case so as to demonstrate the implications of the lack of consensus regarding the referred concept. We hope, therefore, to contribute to the debate on the concept of humanitarian intervention in the International Relations and Law literature.

Este trabalho procura investigar a revitalização da teoria da guerra justa nas suas formas tradicional e na Filosofia Política Contemporânea. Assim como a sua influência, dentro de um fenômeno amplo de moralização do Direito Internacional Público, acerca dos casos polêmicos sobre o uso da força armada, em especial as intervenções humanitárias e a legítima defesa antecipatória. Analisa a recepção destas idéias na doutrina do Direito Internacional, da Filosofia do Direito Internacional e nas Comissões Internacionais que trataram do uso da força armada nos últimos anos. / This work wants to investigate the revitalization of the theory of just war in its traditional way and in Contemporary Political Philosophy. As such as its influence, inside the matter of moralization of International Law, on the polemical cases about the use of armed force, especially humanitarian interventions and anticipatory self-defense. Analyses the reception of these ideas on the doctrine of International Law, Philosophy of International Law, and International Commissions which dealt with the use of armed force in the last years.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-05T17:20:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 26 / Nenhuma / Em um breve olhar sobre a atual conjuntura sócio-política internacional, verifica-se que o mundo tem passado por um período importante de sua história, caracterizado, dentre outros fatores, pelo rápido crescimento no número de conflitos armados. Entretanto, o tradicional sistema multilateral de solução pacífica de controvérsias tem demonstrado pouca eficácia e legitimidade para o enfrentamento desse grave problema. Neste contexto, a presente dissertação tem como objetivo principal verificar a possibilidade de construção de um novo paradigma jurídico de intervenção humanitária, fundamentado essencialmente nos princípios de solidariedade e não-indiferença, bem como no dever de assistência e afinidade. Em outras palavras, a presente pesquisa procura analisar que tradução jurídica e filosófica poderia ser dada à idéia de diplomacia solidária. Para tanto, considerou-se que, ao lado da intervenção militar e da diplomacia tradicional, emerge uma terceira matriz de atuação que é a evolução da cooperação internacional / In a brief look at the current socio-political international environment, it appears that the world has gone through an important period of its history, which, among other factors, the rapid growth in the number of armed conflicts. However, the traditional multilateral system of peaceful settlement of disputes has shown little effectiveness and legitimacy in the face of this serious problem. In this context, this dissertation has as main objective to verify the possibility of building a new legal paradigm of humanitarian intervention, based essentially on principles of solidarity and non-indifference, as well as the duty of care and affinity. In other words, this research attempts to legal analyze and philosophical translation that could be given to the idea of diplomacy solidarity. Thus, it is considered that, alongside the military intervention and diplomacy traditional and emerging role of a third matrix that is the evolution of international cooperation for the promotion of public policies. The structure

<p>The issue of humanitarian intervention presents a perennial conundrum and is one of the hottest topics in contemporary international relations. It contains aspects of both idealism and realism and is largely an issue born out of the end of the Cold War. This paper provides a theoretical and empirical evaluation of this normative shift in interstate affairs.</p><p>The vast growing body of human rights law serves as one indication that international law is changing in terms of a shift of focus, away from states, and towards the international community made up of individuals. However, in absence of a formal agreement on how and to what scope international law has changed, conclusions can only be made based on the emerging, limited and fragile body of state and UN practices. If such a shift were to be accompanied by a corresponding empirical transformation, it would undoubtedly represent a huge leap forward towards a more solidarist underpinned world order. The present trends within international relations represent at least an aspiration towards some more clearly envisioned solidarity. As international actors interact, they generate new norms, but one must remember that the actors and their practices are themselves products of older norms. The present structures of international society are not ready to accommodate such change.</p><p>Human rights are important, not only because they become embedded in institutions and create new coalitions between actors, but also because they help states redefine their national interests and identities, as well as help them to choose among conflicting priorities such as sovereignty and humanity. Under the present global system, any discussion of the international protection of human rights and humanitarian intervention implies changes in both norms and practices. The theoretical part of this paper provides a framework for assessing these recent developments by determining first, how and why values are shared, and what these values need to be in order for international society to be categorized as solidarist. The empirical part, then moves on to assess state and UN practice in order to conclude if solidarism is a reality in today’s international society.</p><p>In this paper, I argue that there is an international consensus in terms of a right to humanitarian intervention in cases of threats against international peace and security and where the UN S.C has given its authorization. Furthermore, even though not clearly establishing any such right to intervention, cases like East Timor, northern Iraq and Kosovo points to a normative shift where the redefinition of the concept of sovereignty might become a reality. This new consensus is a product of mainly three recent developments: a more expansive interpretation of the S.C on what constitutes a threat to international peace and security, the revolution of information technology that has heightened awareness of conflict and suffering, and the increased robustness of international human rights norms. While diversity continues to characterize the 21st century, there is a greater degree of consensus on the meaning of sovereignty and human rights today than most pluralists suggest. Nevertheless, the practical behaviour of the international community shows that the commitment to solidarism remains minimal.</p>

This study is concerned with Canadas policy towards peace, security and development in Africa. It examines Canadas response to these issues in relation to the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD), the African Union Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Security Mechanism. With the intensification of violent conflicts in parts of Africa and their impact on individuals, communities, and socioeconomic development, African leaders transformed the OAU into the AU and established APSA to promote regional and human security in Africa. At the sub-regional level, West African leaders established the ECOWAS Security Mechanism to address the (human) security deficit in the West Africa region. These institutional transformations coincided with the launching of the NEPAD, which became one of the central instruments of engagement between Africa and the international community to address the peace, security and development challenges on the African continent. Canadas response to the NEPAD under the Liberal government of Jean Chrtien came in the form of a $500 million Canada fund for Africa (CFA) that among other things supported the capacity building of APSA and the ECOWAS Security Mechanism. The promotion of human security played a key role in Canadas approach to the AU and ECOWAS peace and security capacity building. I use a non-imperial internationalist approach that draws on the theoretical insights of a constructivist approach to international relations to provide an understanding of the Canadian governments policy. I argue that the Canadian governments policy towards the AU and ECOWAS can be understood in terms of the moral identity that Canada has built or acquired over the years in Africa. While this moral identity provides the means through which Canadian interests are pursued in Africa, it appears that the interest in maintaining this image has overshadowed the need for the Canadian government to craft an overarching policy and put resources behind the rhetoric of promoting peace and security, particularly human security in Africa.

Humanitarian intervention becomes a focal point of international debate because it seems to be morally right but legally wrong. It challenges the principle of non-intervention and non-use of force encompassed in the Charter of the United Nations (UN), which was established in 1945 to prevent aggressions that led to the two world wars. However, since the 1990s, state practices of military intervention to protect human rights increased dramatically, many of which were even endorsed by the UN or in close cooperation with it. In other words, the UN is the most important, or insofar the only acceptable, body to authorize and legitimize any military operations with humanitarian rationale. This research aims at investigating the limitations of the UN in coordinating its responsibilities of maintaining peace and security and of protecting human rights. Two cases, Rwanda in 1994 and Sudan from 2003 on, are chosen as examples to probe into the practice of the UN and try to determine what has changed and what remains steadfast of the UN practice in humanitarian intervention in these ten years. By focusing on the cases of Rwanda and Sudan, this thesis is intended to address the following questions: (1) In the past decade, has the UN system become more comfortable with humanitarian intervention? (2) What are the limitations of the UN in conducting “humanitarian intervention”? What causes these limitations? And why? (3) What can be done to improve the incompetence of the UN in terms of humanitarian intervention? How to harmonize the UN’s conflicting responsibilities of upholding human rights and defending the principle of non-intervention? This research concludes that the new approach of the “responsibility to protect” that was created in recent years shows that a normative change is on the way. Besides, from Rwanda to Sudan, the UN has made progress in addressing grave humanitarian issues. However, all the efforts still have to depend on the political will of the member states of the UN. Since this issue is still more a political one than a legal one, in the years to come, the UN will still face the difficulty of fulfilling its responsibility.