Humanitarian intervention is a concept that generates several problems in our time. The idea of humanitarian intervention concerns the modern norms of sovereignty and noninterventional principals. It also concerns the conventional norm, which declares that states are not allowed to interfere in other states’ internal affairs. The use of military force to implement humanitarian intervention is restricted according to international law. This is what this thesis intends to investigate. The purpose was to find out the causes behind the intervention in Libya, which was carried out by NATO. The main questions were (1) to find out if the intervention in Libya was a humanitarian intervention (2) or if there were other motives that were behind the intervention. Two classical international relations theories have been utilized for the analysis. The analysis focused on the five UN Security Council members’ statements and arguments, which have been expressed in the UN Security Council. This issue created a gap between the members of the Security Council, especially between the Western states and the Russian and Chinese authorities

No description available.

This thesis examines the discourse on human security, in particular the 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect. I contend that the human of human security is deeply indebted to an account of the modern subject that is also responsible for producing the model of the citizen/state relationship to which human security is conceived of as a response. Human security reaffirms the appropriateness of the sovereign state while at the same time re-conceiving sovereignty as responsibility and empowering certain international actors to intervene in sovereign states should they fail to act responsibly. Like the citizen, the ostensibly universal category of the human is produced through the exclusion or dehumanization of some ways of being human and some human beings. However, I also consider the ways in which human security works to humanize its subjects, producing the kinds of humans that can be secured.

This dissertation examines the history of humanitarianism in international relations by tracing the relationship between moral obligation and sovereignty from the 16th century to the present. Its main argument is that moral obligations and sovereignty are mutually constitutive, in contrast to a widely held assumption in international relations scholarship that they are opposed to each other. The dissertation’s main theoretical contribution is to develop a framework, using a genealogical method of inquiry, for understanding the relationship between sovereignty and the shifting boundaries of moral obligation during the Westphalian period. This approach makes it possible to identify both elements of continuity and change in the history of humanitarianism and practices of sovereignty. The first chapter demonstrates how the extant literature on sovereignty and humanitarianism fails to adequately account for how states have participated in the construction of new moral boundaries even as they have sought to assert their own sovereignty. Chapter two lays out the dissertation’s theoretical framework, first by outlining an identity-based understanding of sovereignty in relationship to moral obligation, and then discussing the genealogical method that is used in three case studies. The following three chapters contain the dissertation’s empirical contributions, which are three historical cases that represent pivotal moments in the history of moral obligation and sovereignty. Chapter three examines the assistance offered by Elizabeth I to Huguenot refugees from 1558-1603, and relates England’s moral obligations towards Huguenots to the emergence of a sovereign English confessional state. Chapter four examines the relationship between British abolitionist arguments against slavery in the 19th century, and justifications for the extension of empire. Chapter five examines the emergence and evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine since 2001, whose advocates posit a modified conception of sovereignty that is explicitly tied to moral obligation. The concluding chapter discusses how the dissertation accounts for both the rise of humanitarianism and the persistence of sovereignty in international relations, as well as provides some reflections on areas for future research.

The UN Security Council is the preeminent multilateral decision-making body and has the legal authority to initiate military interventions if it first determines a threat to international peace and security, including from civil wars or widespread state repression. While traditional norms of non-intervention and the politics of the Cold War curtailed the body’s ability to fulfil this role, evolving understandings and practices of sovereignty and security in the post-Cold War era have led to the apparent emergence of a new norm permitting ‘humanitarian intervention’ and an in principle acceptance that the body has a ‘responsibility to protect’ vulnerable civilians residing inside the borders of their own state, including through military means. In this context, the thesis argues that the situation in Darfur, western Sudan, has represented a quintessential case for the Council to fulfil its ‘responsibility to protect’. According to a number of authoritative investigations, since 2003 the Sudanese government and government-allied Arab militias have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity on a widespread and systematic basis against Darfur’s non-Arab population. As a result, over 200,000 people died either directly from violence or indirectly from conflict-induced disease and malnutrition, while a further two million fled from their homes and villages in fear. A number of nonmilitary measures were attempted by the Council but failed to create adequate security on the ground. As such, there was a compelling legal-institutional, normative and moral case for the Council to coercively deploy a military intervention in Sudan to protect vulnerable civilians in Darfur. However, during the 2003-06 period of study, no such intervention was deployed. The thesis argues that intervention by the Council was precluded by the national interests of its permanent members, including a lucrative economic relationship between China and Sudan, and because of valuable Sudanese intelligence cooperation in Western counter-terrorism operations in the region. The thesis concludes that the Council’s members chose to preserve these national interests at the expense of protecting civilians in Darfur.

This thesis examines the discourse on human security, in particular the 2001 report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect. I contend that the human of human security is deeply indebted to an account of the modern subject that is also responsible for producing the model of the citizen/state relationship to which human security is conceived of as a response. Human security reaffirms the appropriateness of the sovereign state while at the same time re-conceiving sovereignty as responsibility and empowering certain international actors to intervene in sovereign states should they fail to act responsibly. Like the citizen, the ostensibly universal category of the human is produced through the exclusion or dehumanization of some ways of being human and some human beings. However, I also consider the ways in which human security works to humanize its subjects, producing the kinds of humans that can be secured.

With lessons learned from the 1999 Kosovo intervention as a point of departure, this thesis addresses the question of whether the development of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) actually made a difference in determining whether and how Europe responded to subsequent mass atrocities in its neighbourhood. Viewing the RtoP as an emerging international norm, a social constructivist framework is applied to explore the influence of norms on European foreign policy-making. It is argued that even an emerging international norm can be influential if it is considered a legitimate behavioural claim. The influence of the RtoP will be assessed by gauging the extent to which it is distinctively used to justify foreign policy decisions and to communicate the basis for those choices to a wider audience. The development of the RtoP and the CSDP from 1999-2011 in theory and practice paves the way for an in-depth case study analysis. Focusing on the UN, the EU as well as French, German and British discourses, the question of whether the RtoP has actually made a difference will be answered by scrutinizing European responses to the Libyan crisis (March – October 2011) and the Syrian crisis (March 2011 – September 2013). Ultimately, light is shed not only on the relevance of the RtoP for Europe but also on the role of the EU as a security actor in its neighbourhood.

By 2018 the war in Syria has been going on for seven years. The conflict has caused the death of hundreds of thousands and has forced more than 11 million Syrians to flee their homes. The responsibility for the huge humanitarian disaster rests on the perpetrators but who has the responsibility to protect? The resolution ’Responsibility to Protect’ [R2P] determines the responsibility to protect on to the international community and the United Nations [UN]. When looking at the large numbers of refugees, wounded and dead the question arises, why hasn't the UN succeed in its responsibility to protect the Syrian people? This case study of the UN:s diplomatic mission and why it has failed to protect the Syrian people rests on the theoretical foundations of resolution R2P, two branches of diplomacy and further the inclusion of women in peacemaking processes. The inclusion of women in the decision-making peace processes are highly important to gain a holistic perspective and an enduring peace according to several available sources. Available data reveals, however, that the numbers of women included in the peace process in Syria are rather low and when women are included they are in a position of advocacy, not decision-making. The essay’s conclusion establishes the prospects for peace in Syria as quite low due to the poor preconditions. Further, the essay finds that the international community through the UN possesses the necessary framework, and bears the responsibility for the Syrian people due to the Syrian government's atrocities committed against its people. The UN:s diplomatic strategy are by the Secretary-General Special Envoys characterized by humanitarian diplomacy, but unfortunately, all attempts by the UN or any other actor to the time of writing have been without success.

“For too long the world has stood by in the face of atrocities. The Responsibility to Protect is a commitment to act.” After the 2005 World Summit, the international community endorsed a new international norm, the Responsibility to Protect. This new international norm stipulates that the primary responsibility to protect the population of a country lies with the state itself. When a state is either unable or unwilling to protect peoples, the responsibility shifts to the international community. The obligation must be exercised preventively and the tools of action include diplomatic, legal and other peaceful measures; coercive measures such as sanctions; and, as a last resort, military force. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

The master thesis on the topic Why do states decide for or against the intervention in other states? Case Study: Libya and Syria is focused on analysing the motives of states, which are crucial for deciding to intervene or not to intervene in the territory of a foreign state. The whole issue is assessed from the perspective of two major theories of international relations - liberalism and realism. As the first research case was chosen the international community's intervention in Libya in 2011. The case was analysed from the perspective of Sweden, which took part in the operation by the deployment of eight fighters Jas 39 Gripen. As the second case was chosen the civil war in Syria, which has been underway since 2011 and whose situation would have required similar interference by the international community. However, this has not happen until that time, although the states are militarily involved in Syria. This case was analysed from the view of Russia, which did not take part in operation in Libya, but since September 2015 has been involved in fighting on the ground in Syria. As a last case was chosen Great Britain, which has militarily participated in both conflicts. For the analysis itself was used Ortega's typology of interventions, which was adapted for the purpose of this work. The different...