Dans la seconde moitié du dix-neuvième siècle, le Sultanat de Zanzibar a été au cœur des politiques abolitionnistes et coloniales aussi bien françaises que britanniques. En effet, l’île de Zanzibar ne fut pas seulement le plus grand marché aux esclaves de l’océan Indien mais aussi la porte d’entrée privilégiée des trafiquants d’esclaves, des abolitionnistes, et des partisans de la colonisation en Afrique Orientale. Cette thèse s’intéresse aux controverses, ayant opposé la France et la Grande-Bretagne dans les eaux territoriales de Zanzibar, sur le droit de visite des bateaux transportant des esclaves ainsi que sur le droit des boutres à battre pavillon français et à échapper ainsi aux contrôles de la Royal Navy. Cette recherche souligne combien ces questions furent importantes, non seulement pour les relations de la France, de la Grande-Bretagne et du Sultanat de Zanzibar, mais aussi pour le droit international et les relations internationales jusqu’à la veille de la Première Guerre mondiale. Ce travail montre que les opérations de lutte contre la traite qui ont eu lieu à Zanzibar ont inspiré de nombreux officiers de marine, des consuls, des diplomates, des juristes, et des hommes politiques, aussi bien français que britanniques, quant à la conception et à la mise en œuvre « d’interventions humanitaires ». Ainsi l’histoire des opérations de lutte contre la traite menées dans le sultanat de Zanzibar permet d’éclairer de manière originale l’histoire du concept d’intervention humanitaire ou « d’humanité » (« intervention in the score of humanity »). Cette recherche souligne combien la nature de ces interventions humanitaires a sans cesse oscillé entre de véritables idéaux abolitionnistes et des enjeux coloniaux pressants. / In the second half of the nineteenth century the Zanzibar Sultanate became the focal point of French as well as British imperial and humanitarian policies. In fact, the island was not only the most important slave trade emporium of the Indian Ocean but it was also the great gateway to East Africa for slave traders, humanitarians, or imperialists alike. This thesis looks at the controversies which took place in Zanzibar waters between France and Britain over the right of searching vessels suspected of being engaged in the slave trade as well as the right of dhows to fly the French flag and escape the Royal Navy’s scrutiny. This research highlights how important these questions were, not only for the relations of France, Britain, and the Zanzibar Sultanate, but also for international law and international relations up until the eve of the First World War. This work demonstrates that the anti-slave trade operations which took place in Zanzibar inspired many navy officers, consuls, diplomats, Foreign Secretaries, and lawyers – whether British, French, or American – on the theory and the practice of “humanitarian interventions”. Indeed, the history of anti-slave trade operations implemented in the Zanzibar Sultanate sheds a new light on the history of the concept of humanitarian intervention, or “intervention in the score of humanity” – (“l’intervention d’humanité”) – as it was then called. This research underlines how these humanitarian interventions unceasingly swung between genuine humanitarian ideals and pressing imperial issues.

[pt] O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar as intervenções humanitárias ocorridas na Somália, em Ruanda e na Libéria a partir do entendimento que cada um desses países se caracteriza como um quase-Estado e que essa condição foi uma das principais responsáveis pelo colapso das instituições estatais em cada um deles. Este trabalho inicia apresentando e discutindo os conceitos de intervenção humanitária, quase-Estado e colapso do Estado e segue numa análise dos antecedentes históricos que levaram cada país ao colapso e às respectivas intervenções internacionais (ONU na Somália; França em Ruanda; e Ecowas na Libéria). Por fim, descreve os equívocos cometidos em cada uma das três intervenções e suas conseqüências para a resolução ou prolongamento dos conflitos. / [en] The aim of this work is to describe the humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Rwanda and Liberia from the understandings of each country as quase- State and this condition as one of the major causes for the collapse of each state`s institutions. This work begins describing and discussing the concepts of humanitarian intervention, quasi- State and State collapse and analyses the historic facts that precedes the collapse of each country and the respective interventions (the UN`s in Somalia; the French`s in Rwanda; and the Ecowas` in Liberia). The final part describes the equivocals done in each one and the consequences for the resolution or the extending of the conflicts.

La responsabilité internationale est un ensemble de conséquences liées à laviolation des obligations internationales, soit le lien juridique par lequel un sujet de droitinternational est tenu, envers un ou plusieurs autres sujets, d’adopter un comportementdéterminé ou de s’en abstenir. S’il y a un comportement illicite, la Communautéinternationale peut intervenir, c’est ce que l’on dénomme souvent « droit d’ingérence ». Cedernier a évolué récemment vers une nouvelle terminologie introduite dans le rapport de laCIISE : « responsabilité de protéger ». C’est un concept selon lequel les Etats souverains ontl’obligation de protéger leurs propres populations contre des catastrophes de grande ampleur.Dans la dynamique du dépassement de l’antagonisme entre souveraineté et intervention, nousanalyserons le comportement de la Communauté internationale face à la « responsabilité deprotéger », le rôle qui lui incombe lorsque l’Etat faillit à ses obligations. Au-delà de cesauteurs, il reste encore à définir quels sont les bénéficiaires de cette protection, sa mise enœuvre et ses limites. Si la notion de « responsabilité de protéger » ne constitue pas seulementune nouvelle terminologie, garantit-t-elle un degré de protection plus élevé par rapport au« droit d’ingérence ». / International responsibility is a set of consequences connected to the violation ofinternational obligations, this being the legal ties which bind a subject of international law toadopt a defined way of behaving towards another or others or to abstain. If there is illicitconduct the International Community can intervene, which is often named “right ofintervention”. The latter hasrecently developeda new terminology introduced in the (ICISS)report: “responsibility to protect”. It is a concept according to which the sovereign states havethe obligation to protect their own populations against large-scale catastrophes.From theperspective of going beyond the opposition between sovereignty and intervention we willanalyse the behaviour of the International Community faced with the “responsibility toprotect”, its incumbent role when the state fails in its obligations.Aside from its creators itremains to be seen who will benefit from this protection, its implementation and its limits. Ifthe notion of the “responsibility to protect” not only constitutes new terminology, does itchange an issue already raised by the “right of intervention”: military deployment with aimswhich are not purely military?

1 Abstract Humanitarian intervention is one of the most contentious issues of contemporary international politics. The roots of the concept of humanitarian intervention can be traced back to the just war theory. Having examined the practice of states, I lean towards the opinion that the international custom legalizing humanitarian intervention has not fully crystallized. Although the realist school comes up with a few very convincing points, I think that the Charter of the United Nations, as it stands now, does not allow to carry out a humanitarian intervention. The International Court of Justice case law does not consider humanitarian intervention legal. The concept of human security became one of the fundamental sources of legitimization of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It also served as one of the principles, upon which the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty had built the doctrine of The Responsibility to Protect. The principles of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine were passed by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. A year later, these principles were referred to in a Security Council resolution on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Although the United Nations General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, their come from the fact...

Diploma thesis Relation between the concepts of humanitarian intervention and regime change: the case of Libya is concerned with the study of military interventions after 1989 in the context of current theoretical discourse. It's main goal is assessing the 2011 NATO operation Unified Protector. The key question of thesis is, whether the intervention, due to the extensive reading of UNSC Resolution 1973, mandate still can be described in the terms of humanitarian intervention concept (in accordance with international law paradigm of R2P), or whether it rather had been a regime change. Based on primary data analysis, the paper shows that actors (most significantly the USA, France and Great Britain) contributing with a theoretically impartial military force, despite the immediate positive humanitarian outcome, helped significantly to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Due to the specifics of the operation, it can rather be described as a hidden regime change - a definition is also offered in the thesis. Based on the theoretical framework created by Michael Reisman, the author also assesses legitimacy of such deeds. The text is divided into three main chapters. Chapter one gives an account of broader context of just war theories, humanitarian intervention and regime change concepts. In the second...

Les difficultés psychologiques sont parfois difficiles à évaluer au cours d'une consultation médicale par un non professionnel (psychologue, psychiatre). Ceci est d'autant plus vrai dans le cas particulier des jeunes enfants lors d'interventions humanitaires, ce qui conduit souvent à une réponse insuffisante aux besoins de soins psychiques. Le manque d'outils validés de manière transculturelle qui répondent aux exigences d'intervention, rapide et simple pour identifier les besoins combinés à un manque de professionnels impliquent des difficultés voire l'impossibilité de mettre en place les prises charges adéquates. Dans ce travail, nous avons réalisé la validation transculturelle d'un outil de dépistage des difficultés psychologiques en contexte humanitaire destiné aux enfants âgés de 3 à 6 ans, le PSYCa 3-6 (Psychological Screening tool for Young Children aged 3 to 6). Cet outil a été initialement créé et développé en 1999 lors d'une intervention humanitaire, son contenu a été affiné et modifié au fur et à mesure de son utilisation. La validation principale a eu lieu au Niger, et deux validations complémentaires ont été mises en place en Colombie et au Kenya. Au total, 888 enfants âgés de 3 à 6 ans ont été inclus entre Octobre 2009 et Février 2012. Une recherche qualitative a été mise en place en amont de la validation pour collecter des informations concernant la perception des difficultés psychologiques localement au Niger. La recherche quantitative s'est intéressée aux qualités psychométriques et cliniques de l'outil. Les trois versions haoussa, espagnole et swahili ont montré des qualités psychométriques et cliniques adéquates incluant une bonne validité concurrente, les scores obtenus à l'outil étant corrélés au gold standard. La recherche qualitative a permis d'affiner et de renforcer les résultats. A notre connaissance, il s'agit de la première validation d'un outil de dépistage pour des enfants d'âge préscolaire incluant un volet transculturel pour usage dans des contextes humanitaires variés. De tels outils validés pour des contextes différents sont indispensables pour promouvoir l'accès aux soins psychiques pour les enfants, souvent non prioritaires dans ces interventions. / Psychological difficulties are sometimes difficult to assess during a medical consultation by a non-specialist (psychologist, psychiatrist). This is especially the case when it comes to young children, in humanitarian intervention contexts, entailing an insufficient answer to the needs of mental health care. The lack of cross culturally validated tools that meet the requirement of such intervention, fast and simple to identify the needs combined with a lack of professional involve difficulties even impossibility of implementing appropriate care. In this study, we implemented a cross cultural validation of a screening tool for psychological difficulties in humanitarian context for children aged 3 to 6 years old, the PSYCa 3-6 (Psychological Screening tool for Young Children aged 3 to 6 years old). This tool was originally created and developed during a humanitarian intervention; its content has been refined and modified along its use. The main validation took place in Niger, and two additional validations have been implemented in Colombia and Kenya. In total, 888 children aged 3 to 6 years were recruited between October 2009 and February 2012. Qualitative research has been also implemented to collect information regarding the local perception of psychological difficulties, prior to the validation. Quantitative research has focused on the psychometric and clinical properties of the tool. The three versions, Hausa, Spanish and Swahili showed adequate psychometric and clinical qualities including a good concurrent validity, scores being correlated with the gold standard. Qualitative research was used to refine and to strengthen the results. To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a screening tool for preschool children including a cross cultural component for use in several humanitarian contexts. Such tools, cross culturally validated in several contexts, are a key component to promote access to mental health care for children, often not on the list of priorities during the interventions.

<p>In this thesis I argue that it is an implication of the acceptance of the human right to water and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that violations of the human right to water can invoke the Responsibility to Protect. Extreme violations of the right to water can invoke the responsibility to react, and ultimately the responsibility to prevent and rebuild. Although this is the case, I argue that the human right to water is unlikely to invoke R2P on its own. Instead, water issues are more likely to compound with issues of poverty, weak political institutions, poor leadership and social tension to create situations that have the potential for mass atrocity. Furthermore, I provide an analysis of the actions that will need to be taken before, during and after an intervention to fulfill the responsibilities to prevent, react and rebuild and the actors that can and/or should take such action.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine was created with the purpose of providing an implementation mechanism for the international community to halt and prevent mass atrocity conflicts, however, it is not a legally binding framework, and requires the UNSC’s engagement for its successful implementation. Whilst R2P is a rhetorically compelling international norm, it falls apart in practice. The lack of consistency in its implementation and the UNSC’s inaction to various cases of mass atrocity, which are, in principle, applicable to the doctrine, has sparked controversy. This thesis examines conflicts in which R2P has been utilized and one conflict of similar dimensions in which the principle wasn’t applied, discussing the factors that could explain the question ‘why has the application of R2P been inconsistent at halting atrocity conflicts?’. By juxtaposing two theoretical lenses, Realism and English School, and applying a comparative analysis to these three cases, the thesis establishes that state behavior is driven by preserving power and resources, when it converges with upholding international norms and values. Thus, the thesis concludes that members of the Security Council will support R2P implementation and uphold shared norms and values, only when it serves their national interests.

This study draws on the theories of pluralism and solidarism from the English School to analyze the approaches of Security Council members towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya and Syria. Using Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation analysis, the study also provides a normative critique of these arguments. The study illuminates the divergent positions taken by the permanent members of the UN Security Council in the context of R2P during the crises in Syria and Libya. The analysis uncovers two starkly different approaches. On one side, representatives from Great Britain, France, and the United States advocate for the protection of human rights, democracy, and freedom. On the other side, representatives from Russia and China prioritize state sovereignty and the maintenance of order and stability. This stark contrast underscores the complexity and challenges inherent in implementing R2P. The study also highlights the concrete arguments and approaches taken by the Security Council’s permanent members. This provides a detailed understanding of how these differences manifest in practice and how they affect decision-making in the Security Council.  Based on the normative analysis, The study found that the normative frameworks of pluralism and solidarism offer distinct perspectives on human rights and state sovereignty, influencing the strength of the permanent members' arguments. Pluralism emphasizes state sovereignty and non-intervention, showing skepticism towards R2P, while solidarism highlights the protection of human rights and supports international interventions, aligning with R2P principles. In practice, examples like Libya and Syria have demonstrated the complexity and challenges of implementing R2P. In the case of Libya, NATO's intervention led to significant loss of life and destabilization, questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of the actions. This situation has underscored the difficulty of balancing the protection of human rights with respect for state sovereignty. The integration of Responsibility While Protecting is proposed in R2P's third pillar to ensure responsible and effective humanitarian interventions.

The emergence of regional security organisations during the 1990s in Africa proved to be of great significance for the lives of many Africans, including those living in conflict-torn countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but, at the same time, this phenomenon has been understudied. This dissertation explores why regional security organisations with an agenda of democratic governance emerged in Africa in the 1990s. This question is answered with two in-depth case studies on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Driven by an empirical puzzle, this study is both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis generating. The study starts by laying out the different possible factors put forward by several bodies of theory in international relations to explain the emergence of ECOWAS and SADC as security organisations. These hypotheses are then tested throughout the history and the evolution of ECOWAS and SADC in order to highlight the circumstances of their creation and their qualified failure as economic communities. This is followed by a comparative analysis of the security and democracy mandates entrusted to ECOWAS and SADC by its member states based on the study of the legal texts that outline the specific objectives of each regional security organisation and the tools they were given to implement their mandates. The study finally analyses the implementation records of ECOWAS and SADC in order to assess the commitment of their member states to their new democracy and security mandate. The research concludes with the two following hypotheses: 1) A security agenda cannot emerge without the involvement of the regional hegemon. 2) What the regional hegemon can do, including affecting the speed of the transformation, is constrained by the acceptance of its leadership by its neighbours (legitimacy) and by state weakness (capability).