This study addressed the question: “Does Western media framing of different actors in ethnic conflict influence the likelihood of intervention being advocated in the media?” In order to answer this question, this study used a content analysis of USA, UK and Australian print media, and explored the media framing of conflicts in Rwanda, Kosovo, and East Timor. The study examined newspaper articles prior to intervention and, using Piers Robinson’s media framing model (2000), measured the quantity of “empathetic” and “distancing” coverage in relation to suggestions for intervention. The results of this study show that simplified representations of these complex conflicts often lead to a dangerous polarisation in Western media. Ethnic conflicts are discussed either within a “barbaric” frame, where readers are presented with well-defined heroes, victims and villains and are encouraged to support intervention; or with a “native” narrative, where the situation is reported as a distant problem between “squabbling tribes”, and the media consumer is encouraged to support non-intervention.

ABSTRACT PEACE BUILDING AFTER HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: THE CASE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Latif, Dilek Ph.D., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. ihsan D. Dagi August 2005, 379 pages. This dissertation analyzes peace building process after humanitarian intervention. It conceptualizes peace building through questioning the feasibility of peace building following a humanitarian intervention. Addressing the deficiency of contemporary peace building approach, this thesis indicates the shortcomings of the various instruments of peace building in contributing peace and reconciliation on the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Besides, it shows the drawbacks of the current practice that peace building is a learning process, which employs the lessons learnt to advance the efficiency of peace building process. There is a lack of comprehensive approach to peace building, based on case studies, evaluating the shortcomings and merits of all the instruments of peace building that provides a general strategy. Despite abundancy of policy oriented research to contribute policy making, academic work to analyze such a complicated phenomena has been frail. Within this context, contribution of the dissertation is to demonstrate the entire picture and question viability of the peace building process in war-torn societies. Therefore, it is enriching the study on the peace building operations. Failure of institutionalization of peace in BiH after almost a decade of rigorous peace building efforts of the international community shows the fault of the mainstream understanding of peace building. The dissertation also unveils that engagement in Kosovo is the product of a similar strategy, which in practice either repeated the same fruitless methods or tried to build on the experience obtained in Bosnia but failed to heal up the troubles and challenges faced in Kosovo. Overall, the study points out the inevitability of a novel approach and an alternative peace building strategy beyond the policy-related focus.

This thesis argues that the Australian military intervention in East Timor in 1999 was motivated primarily by the need to defend Australia’s own strategic interests. It was an act of Australian imperialism understood from a Marxist perspective, and was consistent with longstanding strategic policy in the region.¶ Australian policy makers have long been concerned about the security threat posed by a small and weak neighbouring state in the territory of East Timor. This led to the deployment of Australian troops to the territory in World War Two. In 1974 Australia supported Indonesia’s invasion of the territory in order to prevent it from becoming a strategic liability in the context of Cold War geopolitics. But, as an indirect result of the Asian financial crisis, by September 1999 the Indonesian government’s control over the territory had become untenable. Indonesia’s political upheaval also raised the spectre of the ‘Balkanisation’ of the Indonesian archipelago, and East Timor thus became the focal point for Australian fears about an ‘arc of instability’ that arose in this period.¶ Australia’s insertion of military forces into East Timor in 1999 served its own strategic priorities by ensuring an orderly transfer of sovereignty took place, avoiding a destabilising power vacuum as the country transitioned to independence. It also guaranteed that Australia’s economic and strategic interests in the new nation could not be ignored by the United Nations or the East Timorese themselves. There are therefore underlying consistencies in Australia’s policy on East Timor stretching back several decades. Despite changing contexts, and hence radically different policy responses, Australia acted throughout this time to prevent political and strategic instability in East Timor.¶ In addition, the intervention reinforced Australia’s standing as a major power in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific. The 1999 deployment therefore helped facilitate a string of subsequent Australian interventions in Pacific island nations, both by providing a model for action and by building a public consensus in favour of the use of military intervention as a policy tool.¶ This interpretation of events challenges the consensus among existing academic accounts. Australia’s support of Indonesia’s invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1974 was frequently criticised as favouring realpolitik over ethical considerations. But the 1999 intervention, which ostensibly ended severe violence and secured national independence for the territory, drew widespread support, both from the public and academic commentators. It has generally been seen as a break with previous Australian policy, and as driven by political forces outside the normal foreign policy process. Moreover, it has been almost universally regarded as a triumph for moral conduct in international affairs, and even as a redemptive moment for the Australian national conscience. Viewing the intervention as part of the longstanding strategy of Australian imperialism casts doubt on such positive evaluations.

L'action humanitaire a connu un développement exponentiel au sein de la société internationale au cours de ces dernières années. Multiplication des résolutions humanitaires votées par les Nations unies, mise en place d'une justice pénale internationale chargée de réprimer les violations du droit international humanitaire, émergence de la responsabilité de protéger impliquant un recours à la force à des fins humanitaires, développement des organisations non gouvernementales en sont les manifestations majeures. Toutefois, la portée de ces évolutions récentes de l'action humanitaire tant sur le plan de la normativité que de l'opérationnalité est à relativiser. Si les insuffisances du droit de Genève ont pleinement justifié l'émergence d'un droit de New York, ce droit de nature essentiellement déclaratoire éprouve de réelles difficultés à palier les lacunes du droit de Genève. En outre, la mise en oeuvre contemporaine de l'action humanitaire, soulève de nombreux questionnements juridiques liés aux modalités et aux conditions de mise en oeuvre. La présente étude a pour objet d'analyser les évolutions et les limites du cadre juridique de l'action humanitaire afin de faire des propositions pour améliorer la condition juridique des victimes des catastrophes humanitaires. / Humanitarian action has seen such an exponential growth in international society in recent years that humanitarianism seems to be carrying increasing weight in international relations. Some of the main examples of this phenomenon are the increased number of humanitarian resolutions passed by the United Nations, the creation of an international court of justice to reprimand violations of international humanitarian law, the emergence of a sense of responsibility to ensure protection by means of force for humanitarian purposes, and the development of non-governmental organizations. However, the scope of these recent developments in humanitarianism, on both the normative and operational levels, needs to be put into perspective. Indeed, while the shortcomings of Geneva law fully justify the emergence of New York law, this essentially declaratory law faces real challenges in overcoming the short comings in Geneva law. Further more, humanitarian action as it has been carried out in recent years gives rise to a number of legal questions relating to the conditions under which such action is taken. This study aims at analyzing the developments and limits of the humanitarian action legal framework, in order to put forward proposals for improving the legal position of the victims of humanitarian disasters.

La question principale de la présente thèse est celle de l’existence de « concepts moraux » – concepts poursuivant des fins altruistes plutôt qu’intéressées – en tant que droit non conventionnel, c’est à dire en tant que droit international coutumier ou principes généraux du droit. La question sera examinée en particulier dans le contexte du discours doctrinal afin de questionner le phénomène du constat trop rapide de leur existence.Le raisonnement se décline en trois étapes. Une série de questions préliminaires relatives à la Charte de l’ONU seront tout d’abord énoncées, elles serviront de cadre à la discussion. Ensuite suivront les sources du droit international non conventionnelles. Et enfin sera discuté l’élément essentiel des relations internationales qui sous-tend la question principale de cette thèse : l’intérêt de l’État. Cette dernière discussion sera illustrée par les exemples des droits de l’homme et de l’usage de la force pour raisons humanitaires. / The main question of the thesis is whether ‘non-treaty’ law – that is customary international law and general principles of law – may exist for ‘moral concepts’ – ideas that follow an altruistic as opposed to a self-interested motivation. In particular, this possibility is discussed against the background of doctrinal discourse on the issue, in order to confront the casual assessment that this is the case. The argument is advanced in three steps. First, a row of preliminary questions under the UN-CHARTER is set out for further discussion. Second follow the ‘non-treaty’ sources of international law. Third stands the essential element of international relations underlying the main question of this thesis: state interest. The latter discussion is complemented by two case studies, one on human rights and one on humanitarian use of force. / Die Forschungsfrage bezieht sich auf die Existenz von „moralischen Konzepten“ – also solchen, die einer altruistischen anstelle einer eigennützigen Motivation folgen – als Völkergewohnheitsrecht oder allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze. Dabei wird die Frage insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund des Diskurses betrachtet, um der beiläufigen Feststellung deren Existenz entgegenzutreten.Die Argumentation folgt drei Schritten. Zu Beginn steht eine Reihe von Vorfragen in Bezug auf die Satzung der Vereinten Nationen als Rahmen für die weitere Diskussion. Zweitens werden das Völkergewohnheitsrecht und die allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätze erläutert. Drittens wird das Staatsinteresse als essentielles Element der internationalen Beziehungen, das der Forschungsfrage zugrunde liegt, diskutiert. Abgerundet wird die Analyse durch zwei Fallstudien, eine zu Menschenrechten und eine zu humanitären Ausnahmen zum Gewaltverbot.

With the seemingly infinite existence of complex emergencies and the overwhelming presence of humanitarian organizations responding to such crises, it is essential that the assumptions, precepts, and actions of humanitarian organizations be critically examined and understood. The aim of this thesis is to explore differing traditions within humanitarian thought: neutrality and solidarity. In the process, this thesis will determine whether it is possible to maintain clear ideologies in the context of a complex emergency and whether the existence of different humanitarian ideologies results in a dichotomy or polarization of humanitarian action. This study is of great import as it delves into the contemporary literature claiming that humanitarianism is currently in a state of crisis – the unsustainability of competing humanitarian ideologies operating together in a complex emergency. Primary documents from both the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) regarding their operations in the 1994 Rwandan complex emergency were examined in order to provide a foundation for the theoretical investigation. Although the ICRC and MSF occupy seemingly polarized positions in the neutrality – solidarity debate, the investigation into their humanitarian activities during the 1994 genocide and the resulting refugee crisis reflected the difficulties of providing relief based upon humanitarian ideals. Due to the complex realities of the 1994 Rwandan crisis, the ideological notions dividing the ICRC and MSF were overshadowed by the simple humanitarian desire to aid those in need.

Humanitär intervention är ett begrepp inom internationella relationer som väcker många känslor och frågor. Trots att idén om att använda våld för att stoppa brott mot de mänskli-ga rättigheter kan verka attraktivt från ett moraliskt perspektiv, vilket man i århundraden har gjort, har denna praktik varit synnerligen oregelbunden. Detta i hög grad beroende på den ambivalens som finns inför de internationella normer som skall reglera staters använ-dande av militärt våld. Synen på humanitära interventioner har ändrats i överensstämmelse med de förändringar som skett inom det internationella systemet. Dessa ändringar har, till viss del, medfört en förändrad syn på de normer som legitimerar användandet av våld inom det internationella samfundet. Humanitära interventioner som begrepp och praktik innehåller många dilemman i vår tid. Detta eftersom det berör traditionella normer av suveränitet och ickeintervention, som är de främsta byggstenarna för det moderna internationella systemet, tillika del av Förenta Na-tionernas (FN) stadgar. Stater är i dag förbjudna att använda militärt våld som ett instru-ment i deras utrikespolitik, förutom i fall av självförsvar eller i kollektiva säkerhetsåtgärder, beslutade av FN:s säkerhetsråd. Det handlar även om att det finns traditionella normer som förbjuder intervention i andra staters interna angelägenheter. Dessutom ska allt militärt våld auktorernas av säkerhetsrådet, som har till uppgift att upprätthålla internationell fred och säkerhet. Med detta perspektiv för ögonen, är användandet av våld för att genomdriva internationella humanitära normer, mycket begränsad enligt internationell lag. Detta har i många situatio-ner skapat ett svart hål när det kommer till att stoppa allvarliga förbrytelser mot de mänsk-liga rättigheter, genom internationellt ingripande. Ovanstående har lett till att man börjat diskutera och ifrågasätta traditionella principer som har varit ledande för det internationella samarbetet, vilket i sin tur skulle kunna öppna vägen för vissa interventioner med humani-tära syften. Denna diskussion handlar om suveränitet, internationella lag och det handlar om moraliska ställningstaganden. Realismen har under lång tid varit den ledande skolan i internationella relationer och därmed lagt grunden för hur man ska tolka internationella konflikter, krigs-föring och interventioner. På senare tid har Realismen utmanats av andra teoretiska skolor och ställningstaganden som ifrågasätter Realismens förmåga att förklara händelser på den internationella arenan. Genom att jämföra Realismens ståndpunkter, gentemot humanitära interventioner, med Utilitarismen och den Kosmopolitiska skolan, har uppsatsen kunnat presentera olika bilder av den problematik som humanitära interventioner idag står inför och därmed måste för-hålla sig till. Igenom att granska konflikten i Rwanda 1994 och Kosovo 1999 har problema-tiken runt humanitära interventioner ytterligare kunnat belysas och diskuteras. Detta har skett genom en kvalitativ textanalys. Nyckelord: Humanitär Intervention, Suveränitet, Icke-intervention, Internationell lag, Rea-lism, Kosmopolitanism, Utilitarism, Moral / Humanitarian intervention is a concept within international relations that provoke many diverse feelings and questions. Although the idée too use force in the name of ending crimes against human rights may seem attractive from a moral perspective, its practise has been highly irregular. This is much due to the norms that regulate states use of military force. The view on humanitarian interventions has changed in unity with the changes that have appeared within the international system. These changes have, to some extent, brought on a transformation in how we look upon the norms that regulate the use of force within the international community. Humanitarian intervention is also a concept and practises that creates many dilemmas in our time. This because it touches and concerns traditional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention, that is not only fundamental building stones for the modern international system, but also a immense part of the structure of the United Nations (UN). States today, are forbidden to use military force as an integrated part of their foreign policy, except in cases of self-defence or collective security measures authorised by the UN Security Council. It is also about customary norms, which declare that states should not interfere in other states internal affaires. In the company of the above stated, the use of force to implement humanitarian norms is fairly limited according to international law. This has repeatedly created a gap when it comes to stop serious violations against human rights through international interference. The above stated has led to an intense discussion concerning how traditional principals may have to chance in ways that better can guide international cooperation’s in these matters. This discussion may in turn lead to an opening for some sort of interventions with humanitarian purposes. This discussion, furthermore, concerns sovereignty, international law, and it is about morality. Realism has for a long period of time been the leading school in international relations and has laid the ground for how we should interpret international conflicts, war and intervention. Recently, this school has been forced too respond to opposition from some other theoretical schools; questioning Realisms ability to explain activities on the international arena. By comparing Realism opinion toward humanitarian interventions, with the Utilitarian and Cosmopolitan school, this thesis has been able to present different pictures describe the complexity of humanitarian interventions. Through analyse of the conflicts taking place in Rwanda 1994 and in Kosovo 1999, the issue of humanitarian intervention has been further scrutinised and discussed. This has been done through a qualitative text analyse. Keywords: Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Non-intervention, International law, Realism, Cosmopolitanism, Utilitarianism, Morality

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.

La responsabilité de protéger est un concept issu des travaux de la Commission internationale de l’intervention et de la souveraineté des États (CIISE). Établie en 2000 à l’initiative du CANADA, elle a recherché à dépasser les controverses inhérentes aux débats relatifs au « droit d’intervention humanitaire ». Aux fins d’atteindre cet objectif, la Commission a forgé un nouveau concept, la « responsabilité de protéger », qui permît de concilier, plutôt qu’opposer, les notions de souveraineté et d’intervention.<p>Depuis lors, la responsabilité de protéger a fait l’objet de vives controverses en droit international. Intégrée dans une résolution de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en septembre 2005, appliquée par le Conseil de sécurité lors de la crise en LIBYE de mars 2011, le concept se trouve, aujourd’hui, au centre des débats se rapportant au cadre juridique de la protection des populations civiles.<p>La présente thèse entend examiner les différentes implications juridiques de la responsabilité de protéger, en optant pour une démarche résolument positiviste. La réflexion proposée tente d’en embrasser les différents aspects, tant conceptuels qu’opérationnels, aux fins d’aboutir à une étude globale, synthétique et actualisée du concept. Partant, une interrogation commandera l’ensemble de notre réflexion: l’émergence de la responsabilité de protéger a-t-elle, en droit international, permis une amélioration de la protection des populations civiles ? / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

本文研析2011年至2016年期間，中國在人道干預立場上對利比亞和敘利亞的差異比較，試圖分析中國在「國家保護責任」（Responsibility to Protect）上的態度轉變。中國於安理會1970號和1973號針對利比亞內戰所涉及的人道干預決議案，不但同意將利比亞情勢送交國際刑事法院，更間接默許西方軍事干預利比亞，此與一向不干預他國內政、尊重他國主權為外交原則的中國相違背。然而，發生於同時期、同受到阿拉伯之春影響、同為推翻獨裁政權的敘利亞內戰，中國卻多次否決對其進一步軍事干預，形成人道干預立場上的矛盾。 而本文試圖利用「國家利益」和「形象建構」兩大分析途徑，探究中國隨著負責任大國的形象建立，和在國際事務上話語權漸增的情況下，於人道干預立場的考量是否有所改變或偏向。本文認為中國在利比亞案例上突破以往不干預他國內政的立場，並不代表中國對「國家保護責任」態度的轉變。其次，中國當前在人道干預立場上，仍以國家利益為主，形象建構為輔，特別是中共政權維穩、國家安全為首要。此外，中國也正試圖擺脫俄羅斯和西方國家的單方影響，建立一套獨立自主的人道干預外交原則。