No description available.

This thesis aims to critically assess the threemain approaches for the legal and political future of humanitarianintervention. It does so through the use of a normative and, to a lesser extent, a dogmatic methodology. The thesis thoroughly examines whether the relevant provisions of the UN Charter provide a satisfactory legal framework. Acknowledging the deficiencies of existing international law, the thesis brings underscrutiny the position that the law should be disregarded. Finding such a worldorder to be unacceptable, the thesis further sets off to explore potential legal and political reforms. The conclusion of the analysis is that a reform must consist of two elements in order to be both effective and legitimate. First, the codification of criteria under which humanitarian intervention is recognised as a legal right. Second, an institutional reform that mitigates the opportunities for states to pursue their political self-interests.

<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>

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Wien, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [334]-352).

Com o fim da Guerra-Fria uma série de conflitos surge em diferentes pontos do globo. Em sua maioria eles são de natureza intra-estatal, marcados por alto grau de violência e com múltiplos atores envolvidos. Acompanha essa nova realidade a adoção de uma postura coercitiva por parte da Organização das Nações Unidas, doravante comum nas chamadas intervenções humanitárias. A partir deste quadro propõe-se aqui analisar os fatores constitutivos desses conflitos, representados em dois estudos de casos emblemáticos do tema em foco, Somália (1992) e Timor Leste (1999), bem como o comportamento da ONU em face desses novos desafios. O fio condutor de toda a pesquisa consistiu em demonstrar sua principal hipótese: o sucesso dos processos de resolução de conflitos chefiados pela ONU foi comprovado somente em episódios nos quais a organização internacional considerou outros recursos além do uso da força militar e enfatizou abordagens mais abrangentes, as quais consideravam atores da sociedade civil originários de diversas camadas sociais. / The end of the Cold War is followed by many internal conflicts around the world. Most of these conflicts, are characterized by a high level of violence and composed by actors from different origins. This work is an analysis of coercive power in humanitarian interventions, ruled by the United Nations, concerning conflict resolution process and humanitarian interventions undertaken in East Timor (1999) and in Somalia (1992). The main goal is to discuss the reasons why United Nations used military force in humanitarian interventions, as well as to highlight the approach to conflict resolution processes developed by international organizations. This work argues that conflict resolution processes tend to be successful when they are based on a broader approach, which concerns actors form civil society, coming from different social origins.

Maintaining the peace and security by regional arrangements in Africa (focusing on peace-keeping operations) Abstract The present thesis focuses on the issue of peace-keeping operations maintained by the regional and sub-regional organizations in Africa, namely African Union and ECOWAS. The main statement of the thesis is the following: The United Nations is unable to react effectively to threats to international peace and security, especially in cases of mass violations of human rights in intrastate conflicts, that have severe impact on particular region including refugee crisis or spreading the conflict to other states of the region. In the thesis, particular instruments of the above-mentioned international organizations, that create the framework for operations for maintaining peace and security in the region, are described. Attention is also paid to the relevant bodies of the African union and ECOWAS such as Peace and security council of the AU or African standby force. The thesis elaborates on problematic or controversial issues from international law perspective. In the first place, the concept of humanitarian intervention and related concept of responsibility to protect is underlined. It is demonstrated that African Union and ECOWAS have significant contribution to these concepts when implementing...

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-07-22 / The wars fought for humanitarian purposes carry itself a controversial aspect because they represent, during its course, the expense of their own human rights. Around that contrast, intense discussions gain prominence about the justifications given for the promotion of armed interventions, aimed at protection of human rights, against sovereign states which become genocides stage and ethnic cleansing campaigns against their populations, almost by default of internal control mechanisms. Indeed, humanitarian activism that took shape in the 1990s brought to light new settings to the traditional model of intervention, especially in relation to the perception of peace enforcement in light of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. From the indifference of world leaders with the civil war in Somalia to the aerial bombardment of the Western powers against the genocide in Kosovo – operation this, it is worth mentioning, articulated without authorization of the UN Security Council – emerges the following question: are there reasons really admitted political, moral and legally legitimizing a duty intrusion of the international community in the domestic affairs of States, to put an end to systematic humanitarian crises? This is actually a contentious issue involving points still no consensus that unsettle the opinions of internationalists, such as the universality of human rights, the need to resize the sovereignty and effectiveness of prohibitory rule of war. Taking into account the relevance of these topics, this paper aims, bibliographically, expose and analyze some of the main reasons attributed to such bellicose interventions, highlighting its political, moral and legal aspects (capitulated in that order). From the research of the most commonly alleged justifications for intervenors up to the present day, it is intended to better contribute to the formation of a critical sense about the claim of just causes of war in the future. / As guerras travadas com fins humanitários carregam em si um aspecto controverso por representarem, durante seu transcurso, o dispêndio dos próprios direitos humanos. Em torno desse contraste, ganham relevo intensas discussões a respeito das justificativas dadas à promoção de intervenções armadas, dirigidas à proteção dos direitos humanos, contra Estados soberanos que se tornam palco de genocídios e campanhas de limpeza étnica contra suas populações, praticamente à revelia dos mecanismos internos de controle. Com efeito, o ativismo humanitário que ganhou forma na década de 1990 trouxe à tona novas configurações ao tradicional modelo de intervenção, principalmente no que se refere à percepção do peace enforcement à luz da doutrina Responsibility to Protect. Do descaso dos líderes mundiais com a guerra civil na Somália ao bombardeio aéreo das potências ocidentais contra os genocidas no Kosovo – operação esta, ressalte-se, articulada sem autorização do Conselho de Segurança da ONU – emerge a seguinte indagação: realmente existem razões admitidas política, moral e juridicamente que legitimam um dever de intrusão da comunidade internacional nos assuntos domésticos dos Estados, visando pôr termo a crises humanitárias sistemáticas? Esta é, na verdade, uma questão polêmica que envolve pontos ainda sem consenso que inquietam as opiniões dos internacionalistas, como a universalidade dos direitos humanos, a necessidade de redimensionamento da soberania e a eficácia da norma proibitiva de guerra. Levando em conta a relevância desses tópicos, o presente trabalho visa, bibliograficamente, expor e analisar algumas das principais justificativas atribuídas a tais intervenções bélicas, ressaltando os seus aspectos políticos, morais e jurídicos (capitulados nesta ordem). A partir da investigação das justificativas mais comumente alegadas pelos interventores até os dias atuais, pretende-se melhor contribuir à formação de um senso crítico sobre a alegação de justas causas das guerras no futuro.

Com o fim da Guerra-Fria uma série de conflitos surge em diferentes pontos do globo. Em sua maioria eles são de natureza intra-estatal, marcados por alto grau de violência e com múltiplos atores envolvidos. Acompanha essa nova realidade a adoção de uma postura coercitiva por parte da Organização das Nações Unidas, doravante comum nas chamadas intervenções humanitárias. A partir deste quadro propõe-se aqui analisar os fatores constitutivos desses conflitos, representados em dois estudos de casos emblemáticos do tema em foco, Somália (1992) e Timor Leste (1999), bem como o comportamento da ONU em face desses novos desafios. O fio condutor de toda a pesquisa consistiu em demonstrar sua principal hipótese: o sucesso dos processos de resolução de conflitos chefiados pela ONU foi comprovado somente em episódios nos quais a organização internacional considerou outros recursos além do uso da força militar e enfatizou abordagens mais abrangentes, as quais consideravam atores da sociedade civil originários de diversas camadas sociais. / The end of the Cold War is followed by many internal conflicts around the world. Most of these conflicts, are characterized by a high level of violence and composed by actors from different origins. This work is an analysis of coercive power in humanitarian interventions, ruled by the United Nations, concerning conflict resolution process and humanitarian interventions undertaken in East Timor (1999) and in Somalia (1992). The main goal is to discuss the reasons why United Nations used military force in humanitarian interventions, as well as to highlight the approach to conflict resolution processes developed by international organizations. This work argues that conflict resolution processes tend to be successful when they are based on a broader approach, which concerns actors form civil society, coming from different social origins.

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.

The purpose of this thesis is to look into the differences between the theoretical frame-works of Realism and Feminism in general as well as their differences with regards to security and referent objects to security. With the differences noted applied upon the Humanitarian Intervention that took place in Kosovo 1999. That is how a shift in the referent objects could change outcome and success or failure in the case studied. This is done by a theory testing study based upon literature within the topics of Realism and Feminism, by mainly Morgenthau (1993) with regards to Realism and Tickner (1992) with regards to Feminism. The reason for these authors in particular is due to their importance in the field and the fact that they are found liberally quoted in academic articles and other literature. By shifting the referent object of security from e.g. territory (state), that Realism uses, to the individuals in general and the women in particular within the territory (state), like Feminism does, there is bound to be a change in outcome and success. The result of this thesis is that a different referent object offers a new perspective.