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. 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. 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. 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.

[pt] Esta tese, fundamentada, principalmente, na Escola Inglesa, analisa o papel na sociedade internacional das práticas sociais relacionadas com o uso não coercitivo dos recursos do âmbito da Defesa entre os Estados e outras entidades que atuam na política internacional. As características, institucionalização, internacionalização, os fatores culturais e as críticas e tensões concernentes com essas práticas são descritas e examinadas, permitindo concluir-se que o fenômeno se constitui um tipo específico de diplomacia: a diplomacia de defesa, considerada como uma instituição da sociedade internacional. / [en] This doctoral dissertation, based, mainly, on the English School, analyzes the role in international society of the social practices related to non-coercive use of Defense s resources between states and other entities with standing in international politics. The features, institutionalization, globalization, cultural factors and criticisms and tensions related to these practices are described and discussed, allowing to conclude that the phenomenon is a particular kind of diplomacy: defense diplomacy, regarded as an institution of international society.

Neonatal screening (NBS) was initiated in Europe during the 1960s with the screening for phenylketonuria. The panel of screened disorders (“conditions”) then gradually expanded, with a boost in the late 1990s with the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), making it possible to screen for 40–50 conditions using a single blood spot. The most recent additions to screening programmes (screening for cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency and spinal muscular atrophy) were assisted by or realised through the introduction of molecular technologies. For this survey, we collected data from 51 European countries. We report the developments between 2010 and 2020 and highlight the achievements reached with the progress made in this period. We also identify areas where further progress can be made, mainly by exchanging knowledge and learning from experiences in neighbouring countries. Between 2010 and 2020, most NBS programmes in geographical Europe matured considerably, both in terms of methodology (modernised) and with regard to the panel of conditions screened (expanded). These developments indicate that more collaboration in Europe through European organisations is gaining momentum. We can only accomplish the timely detection of newborn infants potentially suffering from one of the many rare diseases and take appropriate action by working together.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the policies, positions, and perspectives of developing countries on the emerging norm of humanitarian intervention after the Cold War, focusing on the period between 1991 and 2001. In doing so, it questions the role of opposition that conventional wisdom has allotted to them as parochial defenders of sovereignty. Instead, the thesis reveals variation and complexity, which militates against defining the South, or the issues that humanitarian intervention raises, in simplistic either-or terms. Part I draws on insights about ‘sovereignty as what states make of it’ to break the classic pluralism-solidarism impasse that has otherwise stymied the conversation on humanitarian intervention and confined the South as a whole to a ‘black box’ labelled rejectionism. It reconstructs the empirical record of developing countries at large on six cases of military intervention (northern Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor), revealing variation that defies easy categorization. It also charts a cumulative and dynamic trend within the South towards a grey area between pluralism and solidarism that shows how these were not diametrically opposed positions. Following from that, Part II looks in-depth at India and Argentina. Whereas Argentina accepted the idea of humanitarian intervention, India remained reluctant to countenance it and persistently objected to the development of a new rule in its favour. Part II argues that the level of congruence between the emerging norm and the two countries’ prevailing values, aspirations, and historically constructed ways of thinking played a key role in determining the different levels of acceptance that the idea found with them. Part III delves deeper into the substance of their views. It shows how neither country constructed mutually exclusive choices between pluralism and solidarism, sovereignty and human rights, and intervention and non-intervention. Rather, both exhibited an acute awareness of the dilemmas of protecting human rights in a society of states, and a wariness of yes-no answers. Cumulatively, this thesis thus points away from thinking about the South itself as a given category with clear, shared or pre-determined ideas, and towards a more nuanced and inclusive conversation on humanitarian intervention.

This thesis develops a theory of international social closure to examine (i) the politics of membership in status groups – or, clubs – in international society and (ii) the persistence of clubs in international society. This thesis offers new concepts to improve the English School’s understanding of international society, its expansion, and its reproduction. In so doing it also addresses limitations and gaps in the IR status literature and the global governance and diplomacy literatures concerned with clubs and networks. This thesis analyses strategies of exclusion, entry, and incorporation used by actors to deny, attempt, or grant inclusion into clubs as well as the institutional contexts underpinning those clubs. Specifically, this research undertakes a study of instances of exclusion, entry, and incorporation in the context of three clubs: the Family of Civilised Nations, the Great Powers club, and G-summitry. In the first two cases, this research relies primarily on secondary sources while in the case of G-summitry it presents original empirical research gathered through archival research, interviews, and ethnographic participant observation. This thesis presents four main conclusions about the operation of closure: (i) the logics of different closure games are defined by overarching normative institutions of international society; (ii) despite a collectivist closure rule, closure in international society is predominantly individualistic; (iii) actors seeking entry tend to employ deferential entry strategies that reproduce a stratified status quo order; and (iv) incorporation promotes stratification along both functional and cultural lines. This thesis also draws three specific conclusions that run counter to much current scholarship: (i) contemporary international society is neither more open nor less hierarchical than nineteenth century international society; (ii) hierarchy is reproduced to a large degree by entry and incorporation strategies rather than exclusion strategies; and (iii) closure does not run along a ‘west versus the rest’ fault line.

國際關係也是社會關係的一環，對國際關係的研究必須植基於國家涉入的歷史、社會、文化等層面進行探求，否則很難對國際關係有著全貌的了解。在美國學界的實證主義長期宰制下，研究國際社會的英國學派長期受到忽視，隱沒於線性發展的歷史中。 為了發掘英國學派受到忽視的地位，本論文擬從下三點著手。首先，回溯英國學派的歷史起源、代表學者、名稱問題；再者，耙梳、整理英國學派的學術內涵，包括現實主義、理性主義及革命主義三個傳統，以及國際體系、國際社會及世界社會三個本體；第三、在美國實證主義的長期獨霸下，注重詮釋方法研究國際社會的英國學派是無法得到關注的。因此，這部分將從社會科學兩大陣營－實證主義及詮釋學著手，並進而帶入受實證主義籠罩的主流國際關係研究。本論文認為以實證主義研究具社會性的國際關係有其侷限，而多元、開放、重社會性的英國學派才能提供更完整的國際關係圖像。 本論文認為抱持多元開放、重視整體性、社會性、規範性的英國學派更能面對接踵而來的環境議題、全球化相關問題及人道干涉等全球性議題，如果正視國際關係也是社會關係的一部分，英國學派是能成為較適當的國際關係理論。 / Social relations encompasses international relations so that the inquiry for international relations must embark on the historical, social, cultural context that states involved in. Otherwise we can’t envisage a comprehensive image of international relations. Under the dominance of positivism led by American international relations, English School, whose intellectual focus is International Society, has been neglected for a long period of time and immerged in the linear history. For the sake of exploring English School, the thesis sets out three schemes. First, it retrospects the history, leading figures and label of English School. Second, it elucidates the arguments of English School, including the three ontologies- International System, International Society and World Society as well as three traditions, namely Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism. Third, beginning with the discuss of Positivism and Interpretivism, the author argues Positivism has its limitation in societal international relations. Consequently, it is English School, which tilts toward an open and diverse inclination, that can tell a better story. The author concludes that English School that stresses on holism, society and social norms can take on the upcoming global issues, such as environmental issue, globalization and humanitarian intervention. If we square up to the fact that international relations is a part of social relations, English School can be a more adequate international relations theory.

Why has international society been unable to develop political and judicial collective-security arrangements to limit external aggression? The thesis argues that efforts to limit aggression in moral and legal theory have created an unjust order in which great powers have used these theoretical traditions to reinforce their power in the global order. The thesis argues that is not a new development but can be found in one of the oldest traditions of moral reflection on war, the just war tradition. To substantiate this point, the thesis critically surveys the philosophers of the ancient Greek, Roman, Medieval Christian Renaissance, and early modern theorists of just war and demonstrates that their just war ideas contain assumptions about exclusion, identity and power reflecting their cultural superiority which underlie the practices and theories of the leading states and justifications of their aggressive wars. The thesis connects these moral reflections to the emergence of modern international law and the European pluralist international society of states based on mutual respect for sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention, highlighting how justifications of its colonial aggression against non-Europeans established an unjust solidarist order against them which persists in the post-Cold War era. To conclude it presents suggestions for improvement in the current pluralist international arrangements to address the issue of aggression.

現實主義的理論特色在於偏好以權力的角度理解國際政治（特別是國家的行為）並且認為在一個處處充滿衝突的無政府狀態體系中，國家是最主要的分析單元。惟類此觀點不僅是一般研究者對於現實主義的誤認，更是現實主義對自我認知的不完備。雖然現實主義將法律或規範置於權力的概念之下，認為國際法只是國家可有可無的一項工具，但事實上國際法律規範與權力卻經常彼此相互影響。 本論文之目的並非要否定現實主義，而是欲對之進行修正及反省。由國際秩序此項議題作為起點，作者處理了下列幾個問題：首先，在國家所組成的國際社中，現實主義維持秩序的策略及其效果為何？其次，若此方法不具成效或有所疏漏，吾人是否有其它的選項可供作為維持國間家往來關係穩定與和平的方法？藉由探索國家創建國際法律規範的原因以及國際法的法源等諸問題，吾人發現國際法律規範之創立往往並沒有一套如同國內法那般正式且專責的機制，但被國家承認為規範或被接受為法律者的方式（例如：國家間的共識），卻不可反駁地存在於國際社會，在這些形成法律規範的方式中，國家（或其他行為者）可以清楚的認知到規範內容中所要求的義務與責任。 因此，儘管現實主義認為國際法不具重要性，但吾人仍應探就國家為何有時願意遵守法律規範的原因。並且設法釐清在現實主義是項研究典範中不同流派的現實主義理論，對於客觀存在的國際法律規範之評價與認知。基於現實主義並非單一的理論而是為一研究典範，故本文在內容上分別從古典現實主義、結構現實主義（包括守勢與攻勢兩種現實主義）、新古典現實主義，以及較為一般人忽略的英國學派等現實主義理論的派別中去探討國際法律規範在國際政治中的地位及功能。文中指出，長期以來人們對於現實主義的理解受限於權力政治這樣的標籤，從而視現實主義與國際制度或國際法為水火而不相容！但事實上，採用現實主義理解國際關係，不意謂著就必須對國際法持以否定的態度。毋寧，在現實主義與國際法律規範之間，存在的不是一種絕對的互斥關係。非結構理論型的現實主義，如古典現實主義，對於國際法即是採取正面肯定其功能的態度。 當瞭解現實主義的秩序觀及其維持秩序策略（權力平衡）的疏漏所在之後，本文解釋了國際法律規範形成的原因以及不同流派現實主義理論對於它的評價和觀點。接著，作者就國際政治的變遷情形做了觀察和檢驗，國際政治自冷戰結束後有了鉅幅轉變，雖然體系的本質依舊如昔，即由主權國家所組成的無政府狀態體系；但是體系內部已有了不同以往的發展和變革。舉例來說，全球化現象已經從經濟領域擴展到政治和文化等其它層面，並向傳統的國家主權及其權力提出挑戰。其它諸如民族分離運動、環境生態等問題也對冷戰後的國際政治造成衝擊，這些影響主要體現在：行為體之間高度的互賴性、行為體之間差異性的擴大，以及對國際法律規範的迫切需要。上述事實使得傳統現實主義以國家作為主體的國際政治體系正朝向一個近似中世紀主義的新政治體系在形成。在此體系中，國家將喪失其原本在體系中的優勢主導性地位，而國際法律規範的發展也將相應的有所提升及調整。 事實上，並非所有行為者的行為皆忠實反映現實主義關於國際法無用論的主張。學者布爾即就國際法律規範所具有的三項政治性功能來解釋國際政治與法律規範間的關係：一、幫助國家認同與瞭解在他們彼此間所形成的「社會」事實；二、在國家和其他行為者間定訂一套基本的互動規則；三、裨益國際社會的成員達成進一步的共識與承諾。結論指出，國際法律規範是國際政治中一項不可獲缺的部分，為了克服傳統現實主義及以結構理論為核心的現實主義在解釋上的不足，「國際社會」的概念必須被深入瞭解和應用在現實主義的理論建構中。同時，吾人應投入心力展開對全球性議題的研究，例如：人權與環保，因為在這些領域中，一項現實主義最為核心的思考—國家主權的獨立與完整，將會遭遇到越來越多的挑戰並使國家藉口主權作為脫逸國際法律規範的可能性大為減低。 / The characteristic feature of Realism is its use of the power concept to explain the course of international politics (especially the behavior of state). The primary unit of analysis is the State which is regarded as operating in an anarchical system dominated by conflict. However, both notions above are misunderstood not only by general students, but the partial of Realism itself as well. Although Realism aligns norms or law with power in so far as international law is considered a tool at the disposal of the most powerful. Yet international legal norms and power also frequently do interact actually. This thesis doesn’t mean to deny the value of Realism, instead, tries to modify and introspect its viewpoints. Starting at the issue of international order, there are several tasks having been done: what is the strategy for Realism to keep order in the society of states and how does it work? Then, if the way for keeping order in Realism wasn’t constructive or in vain, do we have other choices to retain the relationship among the states stable and peaceful? By way of finding out why the states created international law and what the sources of international law are, we can think that the making process of international legal norms and norms itself don’t possess one formal mechanism responsible for law creation like the domestic law, but there are recognized and accepted methods by which legal norms or rules came into existence, for example, the consent of states. In those methods the precise content of legal norms can be identified by states (or other actors). Despite, therefore, the realist perspective deems international law to have no significance in its own right but we still have to seek to ascertain why do the States obey international law sometimes, if not always, but at least. And make it clear to know what the appraisal and perception in different schools under the Realism Paradigm. As we have known the Realism is not a single theory but a research paradigm, the author investigated respectively the different schools of Realism; they are Classical Realism, Structural Realism (including Offensive and Defensive Realism), Neoclassical Realism and Realism in English School. As the content points out, people whose stereotype of Realism has been limited to power politics are used to thinking that international institutions (and regimes) or international law is incompatible with the Realism, usually. However, it’s not absolute for us to consider that Realism turns down international law necessarily. For one instance, Realism without using structural concept, like Classical Realism, takes the positive attitude toward the role and the functions of international legal norms. After realizing the Realism’s conception of order and what the flaw of its strategy (Balance of Power) to maintain order is, this thesis then mentioned about the reasons why international law is created, and how different school under the Realism Paradigm evaluates international law. Following up, the author inspected the change in international politics. In the post Cold War era, though the nature of international system is still like what it used to be, a Anarchical system, the different and new phenomena do really happen. Globalization, for instance, is one momentous challenge to the sovereignty of States and their political power. The rest like separatist movements, environmental problems are also influential to international politics. The central issues of those influences are the interdependence among actors, the dissimilarities among actors and the yearning for international legal norms. Under the perceptions like this, the traditional state-centric international system of Realism has been being toward a Neo-Medieval system. In that system, state actors will lose their predominant and leading stand. On the other hand, the development of international legal norms will adjust itself to the new world and become more important. In fact, the behavior of international actors does not seem to bear out the realist assumption of the impotence of international law. Bull, for example, explains the international law-international politics relationship in terms of three political functions fulfilled by international law: to identify the idea of a society of sovereign States, to state the interactive basic rules of coexistence among States and international actors, and to help mobilize compliance with the rules of international society. As the conclusion in this thesis pointed out, international legal norms is one part of international politics. In order to overcome the inadequacies of the traditional and structural realist interpretation, the concept of ‘International Society’ must be dealt and applied explicitly and deeply in constructing theory of Realism. Meanwhile, people should spend more time researching the global issues, such as human rights and environmental protection, because in these sectors, the most core of realist thinking, independence and integrity of sovereignty, will get into plight and encounter more and more challenges, and the possibility for the States to get rid of international legal norms in the name of sovereignty becomes less and less.