Humanitarian interventions tend to be justified by claims to the existence of an obligation upon ‘us' (the benevolent saviours) to intervene militarily when a state is responsible for large-scale atrocity crimes against its own population. However, this justification is paradoxical, given that there is rarely held to exist a commensurate obligation to address structural violence (even when ‘we' may be partly responsible for, or complicit within, structures that are violent). The paradox arises because structural violence can be harmful – even evil – in its own right, and can also lead to – or exacerbate – direct violence. Hence, intervening militarily, and inevitably causing further harm in the act of intervening, results in a moral shortfall. This shortfall is indicative of a prevailing understanding of harm that is blind to the potential for structures to be violent. In responding to the paradox, I adopt a critical cosmopolitan perspective to argue that because structural violence can be harmful on a great scale, and because it is co-constitutive of direct violence, we ought not to countenance intervening with the use of military force (with what this brings in the form of inevitable intended and unintended harm) to stop direct violence without also considering and addressing violent structures, especially if they are violent structures that we are, ourselves, embedded within. Therefore, it is morally imperative to engage in an ongoing process of illumination and addressing of evil structures to rectify the harms they cause, alongside any efforts to stem direct violence, if any sort of intervention is to be legitimate and just. This requires us to a) expand our understanding of harm and evil at the global level, and b) engage in consistent and sustained deliberative processes that bring to the forefront structural violence and structural underpinnings of direct violence.

Maintaining the peace and security by regional arrangements in Africa (focusing on peace-keeping operations) Abstract The present thesis focuses on the issue of peace-keeping operations maintained by the regional and sub-regional organizations in Africa, namely African Union and ECOWAS. The main statement of the thesis is the following: The United Nations is unable to react effectively to threats to international peace and security, especially in cases of mass violations of human rights in intrastate conflicts, that have severe impact on particular region including refugee crisis or spreading the conflict to other states of the region. In the thesis, particular instruments of the above-mentioned international organizations, that create the framework for operations for maintaining peace and security in the region, are described. Attention is also paid to the relevant bodies of the African union and ECOWAS such as Peace and security council of the AU or African standby force. The thesis elaborates on problematic or controversial issues from international law perspective. In the first place, the concept of humanitarian intervention and related concept of responsibility to protect is underlined. It is demonstrated that African Union and ECOWAS have significant contribution to these concepts when implementing...

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-07-22 / The wars fought for humanitarian purposes carry itself a controversial aspect because they represent, during its course, the expense of their own human rights. Around that contrast, intense discussions gain prominence about the justifications given for the promotion of armed interventions, aimed at protection of human rights, against sovereign states which become genocides stage and ethnic cleansing campaigns against their populations, almost by default of internal control mechanisms. Indeed, humanitarian activism that took shape in the 1990s brought to light new settings to the traditional model of intervention, especially in relation to the perception of peace enforcement in light of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. From the indifference of world leaders with the civil war in Somalia to the aerial bombardment of the Western powers against the genocide in Kosovo – operation this, it is worth mentioning, articulated without authorization of the UN Security Council – emerges the following question: are there reasons really admitted political, moral and legally legitimizing a duty intrusion of the international community in the domestic affairs of States, to put an end to systematic humanitarian crises? This is actually a contentious issue involving points still no consensus that unsettle the opinions of internationalists, such as the universality of human rights, the need to resize the sovereignty and effectiveness of prohibitory rule of war. Taking into account the relevance of these topics, this paper aims, bibliographically, expose and analyze some of the main reasons attributed to such bellicose interventions, highlighting its political, moral and legal aspects (capitulated in that order). From the research of the most commonly alleged justifications for intervenors up to the present day, it is intended to better contribute to the formation of a critical sense about the claim of just causes of war in the future. / As guerras travadas com fins humanitários carregam em si um aspecto controverso por representarem, durante seu transcurso, o dispêndio dos próprios direitos humanos. Em torno desse contraste, ganham relevo intensas discussões a respeito das justificativas dadas à promoção de intervenções armadas, dirigidas à proteção dos direitos humanos, contra Estados soberanos que se tornam palco de genocídios e campanhas de limpeza étnica contra suas populações, praticamente à revelia dos mecanismos internos de controle. Com efeito, o ativismo humanitário que ganhou forma na década de 1990 trouxe à tona novas configurações ao tradicional modelo de intervenção, principalmente no que se refere à percepção do peace enforcement à luz da doutrina Responsibility to Protect. Do descaso dos líderes mundiais com a guerra civil na Somália ao bombardeio aéreo das potências ocidentais contra os genocidas no Kosovo – operação esta, ressalte-se, articulada sem autorização do Conselho de Segurança da ONU – emerge a seguinte indagação: realmente existem razões admitidas política, moral e juridicamente que legitimam um dever de intrusão da comunidade internacional nos assuntos domésticos dos Estados, visando pôr termo a crises humanitárias sistemáticas? Esta é, na verdade, uma questão polêmica que envolve pontos ainda sem consenso que inquietam as opiniões dos internacionalistas, como a universalidade dos direitos humanos, a necessidade de redimensionamento da soberania e a eficácia da norma proibitiva de guerra. Levando em conta a relevância desses tópicos, o presente trabalho visa, bibliograficamente, expor e analisar algumas das principais justificativas atribuídas a tais intervenções bélicas, ressaltando os seus aspectos políticos, morais e jurídicos (capitulados nesta ordem). A partir da investigação das justificativas mais comumente alegadas pelos interventores até os dias atuais, pretende-se melhor contribuir à formação de um senso crítico sobre a alegação de justas causas das guerras no futuro.

Com o fim da Guerra-Fria uma série de conflitos surge em diferentes pontos do globo. Em sua maioria eles são de natureza intra-estatal, marcados por alto grau de violência e com múltiplos atores envolvidos. Acompanha essa nova realidade a adoção de uma postura coercitiva por parte da Organização das Nações Unidas, doravante comum nas chamadas intervenções humanitárias. A partir deste quadro propõe-se aqui analisar os fatores constitutivos desses conflitos, representados em dois estudos de casos emblemáticos do tema em foco, Somália (1992) e Timor Leste (1999), bem como o comportamento da ONU em face desses novos desafios. O fio condutor de toda a pesquisa consistiu em demonstrar sua principal hipótese: o sucesso dos processos de resolução de conflitos chefiados pela ONU foi comprovado somente em episódios nos quais a organização internacional considerou outros recursos além do uso da força militar e enfatizou abordagens mais abrangentes, as quais consideravam atores da sociedade civil originários de diversas camadas sociais. / The end of the Cold War is followed by many internal conflicts around the world. Most of these conflicts, are characterized by a high level of violence and composed by actors from different origins. This work is an analysis of coercive power in humanitarian interventions, ruled by the United Nations, concerning conflict resolution process and humanitarian interventions undertaken in East Timor (1999) and in Somalia (1992). The main goal is to discuss the reasons why United Nations used military force in humanitarian interventions, as well as to highlight the approach to conflict resolution processes developed by international organizations. This work argues that conflict resolution processes tend to be successful when they are based on a broader approach, which concerns actors form civil society, coming from different social origins.

Este trabalho procura investigar a revitalização da teoria da guerra justa nas suas formas tradicional e na Filosofia Política Contemporânea. Assim como a sua influência, dentro de um fenômeno amplo de moralização do Direito Internacional Público, acerca dos casos polêmicos sobre o uso da força armada, em especial as intervenções humanitárias e a legítima defesa antecipatória. Analisa a recepção destas idéias na doutrina do Direito Internacional, da Filosofia do Direito Internacional e nas Comissões Internacionais que trataram do uso da força armada nos últimos anos. / This work wants to investigate the revitalization of the theory of just war in its traditional way and in Contemporary Political Philosophy. As such as its influence, inside the matter of moralization of International Law, on the polemical cases about the use of armed force, especially humanitarian interventions and anticipatory self-defense. Analyses the reception of these ideas on the doctrine of International Law, Philosophy of International Law, and International Commissions which dealt with the use of armed force in the last years.

The purpose of this thesis is to look into the differences between the theoretical frame-works of Realism and Feminism in general as well as their differences with regards to security and referent objects to security. With the differences noted applied upon the Humanitarian Intervention that took place in Kosovo 1999. That is how a shift in the referent objects could change outcome and success or failure in the case studied. This is done by a theory testing study based upon literature within the topics of Realism and Feminism, by mainly Morgenthau (1993) with regards to Realism and Tickner (1992) with regards to Feminism. The reason for these authors in particular is due to their importance in the field and the fact that they are found liberally quoted in academic articles and other literature. By shifting the referent object of security from e.g. territory (state), that Realism uses, to the individuals in general and the women in particular within the territory (state), like Feminism does, there is bound to be a change in outcome and success. The result of this thesis is that a different referent object offers a new perspective.

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?

This study explores the effects humanitarian interventions have on the human right status in a country. The theoretical standpoint is based on the notion that a perceived lack of accountability and repercussions for crimes committed will function as motivation for local actors to continue the human right violations, or even increase their efforts. Therefore, the working hypothesis of the study is notion that the human right violations will increase because of the presence of a humanitarian intervention. Through the use of the Cingranelli-Richards dataset, an internationally recognized source of quantitative data for human right indicators between 1981 and 2011, an indication on the effect of humanitarian interventions is provided. This is done through a method referred to as Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD), commonly used to measure the effect of a specific treatment. The results indicate that the prevalence of physical violations, such as torture and extrajudicial killings, decrease because of the intervention. However, the freedom of freely moving in and out of the country deteriorates following an intervention. The other human rights indicators proved not to be statistically significant meaning that no relationship could be determined. All in all, contrary to the theoretical narrative the assumed lack of repercussions did not provide enough incentive for further increasing human right violations. However, the practical implementations of the results are positive. Because no confirmed relationship apart from in the case of physical rights was proven it means that humanitarian interventions avoid facing a severe argument to cancel the concept which a confirmed relationship would have meant.