In the year of 2016 the EU introduced an extraordinary agreement with Turkey. The aim was to jointly manage the increasing migration flows that arose during the migration crisis between 2015-2016. This by introducing new security measures aimed at making it difficult for migrants to cross the sea route via Turkey into the EU. Both with the mission to protect the EU:s external borders but also to decrease the rising death rates among migrants that had been trying to cross the sea route. The agreement with Turkey is still active to this day and poses as the main framework to handle migration in the eastern mediterranean. With rising concerns and critique from human rights groups, that the agreement is causing extensive human suffering it becomes an interesting topic to study. Therefore this thesis aims to explore how EU-politicians from the start have managed to justify the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal and restrictive measures taken against migrants. Which in the thesis has been explored by examining how EU-politicians strategically have used two types of security discourse: the humanitarian and the pure security discourse. Within their political statements regarding the EU-Turkey agreement between the year 2015-2016. The political statements have been analyzed through Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis. And together with the theoretical framework of the securitization theory the thesis has concluded that the two security discourses are strategically used to create representations of migrants and the EU that favors the EU-Turkey agreement. In addition the thesis emphasizes how the security discourses within the political statements have securitized the migration issue, which according to the securitization theory makes it easier to justify the implementation of extraordinary measures.

Background There are natural disasters happening all around the globe. Humanitarian crises might occur because of these natural disasters. In those humanitarian crises there are nurses working to support people in need. Aim The aim of this study was to highlight the experiences of nurses working with humanitarian aid during natural disasters. Method A qualitative literature study. Literature was found in Pubmed and Cinahl. Analysis was inspired by qualitative content analysis by Graneheim and Lundman. Results The analysis of nine articles resulted in two categories; “Being able to handle the situation”, “To understand the impact of the surroundings”, and nine subcategories. Conclusion Working in humanitarian crises caused by natural disasters poses challenges for nurses who have participated in the rescue operation. Due to a lack of organization, prior knowledge and materials, nurses are forced to become flexible and adaptable. Traumatic events for victims and rescue personnel means that psychological care is in demand. For nurses, there’s also a demand for preparatory training in emergency preparedness for rescue operations

Denna studie ämnar ta reda på om den humanitära interventionen i Somalia, mellan åren 1993-1995 kan anses vara humanitär eller inte, enligt Nicholas J Wheelers solidaritetsteori. Först undersöks om UNSOM II passar in i solidaritetsteorin kriterier och därefter förklaras varför. Resultat från ovanstående undersökning kommer att ge en bättre bild av UNSOM II och hjälpa till med att förklara faktorer som kan spela roll om en humanitär intervention benämns humanitär. Materialet som används i denna uppsats är utvärderingar och rapporter från åren, publicerade av Förenta Nationerna, Amnesty International och Human Rights Watch. Denna studie fann att UNSOM II inte var humanitär i relation till solidaritetsteorin, med hänsyn till bristen av proportionerlig användning av våld under jakten på Aydid. Dessutom var de nådda resultaten inte tillräckliga för att betecknas som humanitära. Några lärdomar från operationen kan dock bli användbara i andra delar av världen. / This study aims to find out if the humanitarian intervention in Somalia, during the years 1993-1995 could be seen as humanitarian or not, according to the theory of solidarity, created by Nicholas J Wheeler. First it will be investigated if UNSOM II fits into the criterias of the theory of solidarity and thereafter it will be explained why. Results from the above investigation will give a better picture of the UNSOM II case and help to explain factors that might matter if a humanitarian intervention is judged humanitarian. The materials used in this essay are evaluations and reports from the mandate years published by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This study found that UNSOM II was not a humanitarian intervention in relation to the theory of solidarity, considering the lack of proportional violence during the hunt for Aydid. Also, the result made by the operation was not enough to be valued as humanitarian. Some lessons learned from the operation might though be useful, in other regions in the world.

No description available.

<p>Tio år efter konflikten i Rwanda har världen ännu en humanitär konflikt att handskas med. Konflikten i Darfur benämns som en efterföljd av FN: s misslyckande i Rwanda. Militär intervention vars syfte är att skydda den humanitära värden har länge varit omdiskuterad. Debatten om humantär intervention har på nytt aktualiserats, när det kommer till frågan om relationen mellan två folkrättsliga grundprinciper; våldsförbudet och skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter, bör sammanföras för att få en effektivare lösning och därmed eliminera all form av hot mot folkrätten. År 2001 lanserades ”Responsibility to protect” rapporten, som svar på Kofi Annans förmaning, om att världssamfundet har en skyldighet att skydda. Ändamålet med begreppet är att nå en konsensus som leder fram till att världssamfundet ska agera effektivare vid humanitära konflikter.</p><p> </p><p>Darfur konflikten eskalerade i samband med att de svarta bönderna gjorde uppror mot den sudanesiska regeringsmakten i början av 2003. Orsaken till den väpnade upproren utmynnar i att bönderna har under en längre tid känt sig illabehandlad. För att motverka revolten, svarade regeringen med att tillsätta Janjaweed gerillan, vilken med stöd från regeringen började bedriva etniskt resning i Darfur.</p> / <p> </p><p>Tio år efter konflikten i Rwanda har världen ännu en humanitär konflikt att handskas med. Konflikten i Darfur benämns som en efterföljd av FN: s misslyckande i Rwanda. Militär intervention vars syfte är att skydda den humanitära värden har länge varit omdiskuterad. Debatten om humantär intervention har på nytt aktualiserats, när det kommer till frågan om relationen mellan två folkrättsliga grundprinciper; våldsförbudet och skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter, bör sammanföras för att få en effektivare lösning och därmed eliminera all form av hot mot folkrätten. År 2001 lanserades "Responsibility to protect" rapporten, som svar på Kofi Annans förmaning, om att världssamfundet har en skyldighet att skydda. Ändamålet med begreppet är att nå en konsensus som leder fram till att världssamfundet ska agera effektivare vid humanitära konflikter.</p><p> </p><p>Darfur konflikten eskalerade i samband med att de svarta bönderna gjorde uppror mot den sudanesiska regeringsmakten i början av 2003. Orsaken till den väpnade upproren utmynnar i att bönderna har under en längre tid känt sig illabehandlad. För att motverka revolten, svarade regeringen med att tillsätta Janjaweed gerillan, vilken med stöd från regeringen började bedriva etniskt resning i Darfur.</p>

Tio år efter konflikten i Rwanda har världen ännu en humanitär konflikt att handskas med. Konflikten i Darfur benämns som en efterföljd av FN: s misslyckande i Rwanda. Militär intervention vars syfte är att skydda den humanitära värden har länge varit omdiskuterad. Debatten om humantär intervention har på nytt aktualiserats, när det kommer till frågan om relationen mellan två folkrättsliga grundprinciper; våldsförbudet och skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter, bör sammanföras för att få en effektivare lösning och därmed eliminera all form av hot mot folkrätten. År 2001 lanserades ”Responsibility to protect” rapporten, som svar på Kofi Annans förmaning, om att världssamfundet har en skyldighet att skydda. Ändamålet med begreppet är att nå en konsensus som leder fram till att världssamfundet ska agera effektivare vid humanitära konflikter.   Darfur konflikten eskalerade i samband med att de svarta bönderna gjorde uppror mot den sudanesiska regeringsmakten i början av 2003. Orsaken till den väpnade upproren utmynnar i att bönderna har under en längre tid känt sig illabehandlad. För att motverka revolten, svarade regeringen med att tillsätta Janjaweed gerillan, vilken med stöd från regeringen började bedriva etniskt resning i Darfur. / Tio år efter konflikten i Rwanda har världen ännu en humanitär konflikt att handskas med. Konflikten i Darfur benämns som en efterföljd av FN: s misslyckande i Rwanda. Militär intervention vars syfte är att skydda den humanitära värden har länge varit omdiskuterad. Debatten om humantär intervention har på nytt aktualiserats, när det kommer till frågan om relationen mellan två folkrättsliga grundprinciper; våldsförbudet och skyddet för mänskliga rättigheter, bör sammanföras för att få en effektivare lösning och därmed eliminera all form av hot mot folkrätten. År 2001 lanserades "Responsibility to protect" rapporten, som svar på Kofi Annans förmaning, om att världssamfundet har en skyldighet att skydda. Ändamålet med begreppet är att nå en konsensus som leder fram till att världssamfundet ska agera effektivare vid humanitära konflikter.   Darfur konflikten eskalerade i samband med att de svarta bönderna gjorde uppror mot den sudanesiska regeringsmakten i början av 2003. Orsaken till den väpnade upproren utmynnar i att bönderna har under en längre tid känt sig illabehandlad. För att motverka revolten, svarade regeringen med att tillsätta Janjaweed gerillan, vilken med stöd från regeringen började bedriva etniskt resning i Darfur.

Abstract This essay has been about investigating and analyzing key rights in armed conflicts and howthey are respected in the Syrian war. The essay brings up three key rights and they are- the right to life- torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment- protection of cultural propertyRegarding these rights, questions are formulated- How have the human key rights been respected in the Syrian war?- How does the protection for the key rights look within IHL?- What do the prospects for an acceptable situation look like in short term?The Syrian war started in mars 2011 as a result of the Arabic spring. The situation for Syria’spopulation has gotten worse since the war’s beginning. It has not gotten better during thesenine years despite hard work from UN and other humanitarian organizations. There was along battle against IS who has been defeated, but there are different actors in Syria thatcontinue to fight.Syria’s president Al-Assad is one of them that bears to biggest responsibility for Syria’scrisis, but he gets supported by for example Russia and Iran. Russia was in Syria to fight IS,but fought rebel groups instead, because they were a threat to Al-Assad. Al-Assad wanted itto look like he was protecting Syria from terrorism. He released islamic prisoners to fightthem. Some of the worst battles has happened in Aleppo, which is the most important cityfinancially.A lot of countries are militarily involved and that does not make it better when it’s abouthuman rights in Syria. When I investigate the respect of international humanitarian law inSyria, it shows that fighting parties fail hard to respect IHL. Cruel crimes against the keyrights has happened since the violence got worse. It is a lot of casualties, people get torturedin prisons and a lot of old culture gets destroyed.Syria’s economy has and continues to fall. Syria has the most refugees in the world since thesecond world war, and this civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis in modern time. Syriahad 20 million residents when the war began and now 11 million people is on flight. Syria has100 armed groups, and they are divided. Syria’s population miss access to survival needs andtheir everyday is life threatening. One cause to fatalities in Syria is lack of food, water andcare. At the same time as USA started to pull their forces back, Turkey took in their forces.Turkey thinks that USA approved the offensive when they pulled their forces back, but USAdenies that. Turkey will not interrupt the offensive, but USA wants it to be suspended.In my investigation I have used a legal dogmatic method in form of articles and based on thesources I have interpreted the key rights and their compliance in Syria. I have used literaturestudies in form of news articles, printed literature and books. Key rights in armed conflict andIHL have big roles in this essay. Literature about key rights within international human rightslaw and its application in the Syrian war is central in the analyze. A SWOT analysis is used toget structure for the description and leads to the conclusions used to answer the given questions. 6(37)In the essay I explain the situation in Syria, IHL and key rights role and situation in Syria andwhat the conflict looks like today. My sources highlight events in different areas in Syria, whichare used in the analysis and as answers to the questions:- In armed conflicts it’s very hard to protect the studied key rights and the war in Syria is noexception. There are plenty of tragic examples on how people are killed or tortured. Manyinvaluable cultural heritage has been systematically destroyed or stolen.- IHL was developed to reduce human suffering and to demand a human acting from fightingparties. In an armed conflict it is IHL that rules.- In the Syrian war there’s only one solution that UN has come up with and is pushing for it tobe implemented. That solution is a Syrian owned and Syrian led political process.

Bakgrund: Antalet kejsarsnitt ökar såväl globalt som i Sverige. Kejsarsnitt är ett kirurgiskt ingrepp som innebär risker för såväl kvinna som barn. Trots risker önskar förstföderskor att genomgå ingreppet istället för en vaginal förlossning. Barnmorskors professionella stöd är av stor vikt för förstföderskors upplevelse inför, under samt efter sin förlossning. Studien utfördes för att förstå orsakerna till att förstföderskor önskar elektivt kejsarsnitt. Syfte: Var att fördjupa förståelsen kring förstföderskors önskan om elektivt kejsarsnitt. Metod: Kvalitativ innehållsanalys med en induktiv ansats. Datainsamlingen resulterade i 14 bloggar från sökmotorn Google.se som analyserades. Resultat: Analysen resulterade i tre teman: Sökandet efter trygghet inför sin förlossning, Tankar på en vaginal förlossning väcker varierande känslor och Val av förlossningsmetod - en rättighet samt sju subteman. Mest framträdande var känsla av brist på kontroll och otrygghet inför en vaginal förlossning. Möjligheten att få välja förlossningsmetod ansågs vara en mänsklig rättighet. Konklusion: Förstföderskor som önskar elektivt kejsarsnitt sökte trygghet inför sin förlossning. Elektivt kejsarsnitt ingav trygghet då det uppfattades som en mer kontrollerad och säker förlossningsmetod både för kvinnan och barnet. Föreställningen av att genomgå en vaginal förlossning skapade rädsla och obehag. / Background: The number of caesarean sections increases both globally and in Sweden. Although caesarean section is a surgical procedure that involves risks for both women and child, first-time mothers wish to undergo the procedure instead of a vaginal delivery. The midwife's professional support is important for first-time mothers before, during and after childbirth. This study was conducted to understand the reasons why first-time mothers want elective caesarean section. Aim: To deepen the understanding of first-time mothers wish for elective caesarean section. Method: A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was used. Google.se was used for data collection, the collection resulted in 14 blogs. Result: The analysis resulted in three themes: The wish for security during childbirth, Thoughts on a vaginal delivery raises a variety of emotions and Choice of birthing method - a right and seven sub-themes. Most prominent was the feeling of lack of control and insecurity for a vaginal delivery. Choice of birthing method was considered a human right. Conclusion: First-time mothers strive for security during childbirth. Elective caesarean section was described as a safe and controlled birthing method. Thoughts on a vaginal delivery raises fear and discomfort for first-time mothers.

<p>Abstract</p><p>This essay has as its purpose to discuss the current legal regulation of the concept of humanitarian intervention. The inconsistencies in the debate over the legal status of this concept, and the legal uncertainty it brings to the acts of states and the lives of their nationals is a motivating factor for the writing of this essay. However, it has been clear from the outset that the concept of humanitarian intervention is intricately connected to political and moral ideas and values. Thus, the attitude taken towards this doctrine will be highly dependent on the perspectives of the state, government or single author representing it.</p><p>Following this starting point, the aim of this essay is not to present a single answer as to whether humanitarian intervention is, or is not, legal, but to research, compare and analyze the different arguments put forward in this subject in international law today. Hopefully, this will provide the reader of this essay with some insight into the sources of international law of today and how the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition of force and the protection of human rights relate to the concept of humanitarian intervention.</p><p>A frank overview of the UN Charter does not support use of force except in the case of self-defence or without a Security Council mandate. Because of the unique character of the Charter and the UN system itself, any interpretation of the Charter will have to consider not only the letter of the Charter but its founding purposes and principles, as well as its function and tasks in international society today. Taking into account this wider perception of the Charter, there have been propositions to interpret the key articles and principles on the use of force in the Charter in such a way that the concept of humanitarian intervention completely circumvents the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. This interpretation, however, has been rejected by the currently most authoritative writers in international law and has received a, to say the least, mixed support among the community of states. The main reason for this is that such an interpretation of the Charter overlooks the travaux preparatoires of the Charter as well as the purposes and functions of the UN, and would produce a result contrary to the peace-building aims of the UN.</p><p>As regards the state practice connected to the relevant regulations of the UN Charter, this essay has shown that the consistency, generality and uniformity of this practise is not sufficient to conclude that a new interpretative regime has been accepted by the states that would allow for humanitarian intervention beyond what is provided for today by the explicit support of the UN Charter. Neither has the claims of a customary rule allowing humanitarian intervention, independent of the rules of the UN Charter, been proved to exist as a result of consistent state practice and an accompanying opinio juris. Still, states have been seen to resort to the use of force claiming a right to humanitarian intervention, and there is recognition of such a doctrine in the writing of several authors. This perception may partly be a consequence of the American dominance in the writing on the subject, and the selectivity that such a limited perspective brings to the overview of the legal position of humanitarian intervention. However, there is proof in the practice of the UN and the instruments concluded by states within the UN system of a new perspective of the state and its responsibility towards its own citizens. Coupled with the emergence of human rights instruments within the UN, there is a possibility that this perspective will bring changes in the values and workings of the UN system and the community of states as a whole. This change may perhaps in the future allow for a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme humanitarian distress.</p><p>However, the risks of misuse of such a new right, as well as the difficulties of formulating a set of criteria for this doctrine that would encompass the will and interests of all states demand that such a development, however mindful of the urgency of the human suffering necessary to counter with such a doctrine, will have to take its time and be conducted with great care to produce a sustainable result.</p>

Abstract This essay has as its purpose to discuss the current legal regulation of the concept of humanitarian intervention. The inconsistencies in the debate over the legal status of this concept, and the legal uncertainty it brings to the acts of states and the lives of their nationals is a motivating factor for the writing of this essay. However, it has been clear from the outset that the concept of humanitarian intervention is intricately connected to political and moral ideas and values. Thus, the attitude taken towards this doctrine will be highly dependent on the perspectives of the state, government or single author representing it. Following this starting point, the aim of this essay is not to present a single answer as to whether humanitarian intervention is, or is not, legal, but to research, compare and analyze the different arguments put forward in this subject in international law today. Hopefully, this will provide the reader of this essay with some insight into the sources of international law of today and how the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition of force and the protection of human rights relate to the concept of humanitarian intervention. A frank overview of the UN Charter does not support use of force except in the case of self-defence or without a Security Council mandate. Because of the unique character of the Charter and the UN system itself, any interpretation of the Charter will have to consider not only the letter of the Charter but its founding purposes and principles, as well as its function and tasks in international society today. Taking into account this wider perception of the Charter, there have been propositions to interpret the key articles and principles on the use of force in the Charter in such a way that the concept of humanitarian intervention completely circumvents the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. This interpretation, however, has been rejected by the currently most authoritative writers in international law and has received a, to say the least, mixed support among the community of states. The main reason for this is that such an interpretation of the Charter overlooks the travaux preparatoires of the Charter as well as the purposes and functions of the UN, and would produce a result contrary to the peace-building aims of the UN. As regards the state practice connected to the relevant regulations of the UN Charter, this essay has shown that the consistency, generality and uniformity of this practise is not sufficient to conclude that a new interpretative regime has been accepted by the states that would allow for humanitarian intervention beyond what is provided for today by the explicit support of the UN Charter. Neither has the claims of a customary rule allowing humanitarian intervention, independent of the rules of the UN Charter, been proved to exist as a result of consistent state practice and an accompanying opinio juris. Still, states have been seen to resort to the use of force claiming a right to humanitarian intervention, and there is recognition of such a doctrine in the writing of several authors. This perception may partly be a consequence of the American dominance in the writing on the subject, and the selectivity that such a limited perspective brings to the overview of the legal position of humanitarian intervention. However, there is proof in the practice of the UN and the instruments concluded by states within the UN system of a new perspective of the state and its responsibility towards its own citizens. Coupled with the emergence of human rights instruments within the UN, there is a possibility that this perspective will bring changes in the values and workings of the UN system and the community of states as a whole. This change may perhaps in the future allow for a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme humanitarian distress. However, the risks of misuse of such a new right, as well as the difficulties of formulating a set of criteria for this doctrine that would encompass the will and interests of all states demand that such a development, however mindful of the urgency of the human suffering necessary to counter with such a doctrine, will have to take its time and be conducted with great care to produce a sustainable result.