Thesis (doctoral)--Aristoteleion Panepistēmion Thessalonikēs, 1965. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 31-50) and indexes.

Thesis (doctoral)--Aristoteleion Panepistēmion Thessalonikēs, 1965. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 31-50) and indexes.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 1917. / Published also without thesis note. Includes bibliographical references (p. [263]-271) and index.

Thesis--Georgetown University, 1971. / Reprinted from Dissertation abstracts international, vol. 32, no. 9, 1972. Includes bibliographical references (p. 229-255).

Since the end of the Cold War, much has been written on the various overseas military adventures of Western powers, with significant focus being placed on the legality and legitimacy of these interventions. Despite the volume of work produced on the topic, this thesis argues that much of it has been framed incorrectly, allowing for a conflation of the concepts of legality and legitimacy to distract from the true source of international legitimacy and the true role of international law. Over this period of time, through a combination of selective application and lack of genuine understanding of its role, statutory international law has steadily lost traction and credibility. Through an analysis of a range of case studies from the post-Cold War era, this thesis argues that international legitimacy emanates not from the international legal order (as represented and overseen by the UN) but from consensus amongst kin countries. There are various potential avenues available to achieve consensus, but which is chosen depends on the circumstances of each individual case. National interest underpins state decision-making and, if significant enough, can, on its own, provide a route to consensus. Additionally, a shared national security concern - the pre-eminent catalyst for consensus during the Cold War - remains a powerful option. Furthermore, in the post-Cold War world, a new, norms-based justification, often classified as “humanitarian intervention” has also developed. Demonstrating compliance with international law can, depending on circumstances, be potentially available to strengthen the case for consensus but is not necessarily always an appropriate or productive choice and plays a secondary role to other, more powerful considerations. By focusing on key case studies it is possible to identify trends in approach to the use of international law and identify the nature of the role it plays in international power politics. Through close analysis of a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, it is possible to identify key drivers for decision-makers and detect the impact of past experience on the use of international law in the quest for legitimacy ahead of launching military action. The trends in approach and in relations between close Western allies (in particular the UK and US) have been identified from the Gulf War in 1990 through to the ongoing crisis engulfing Syria, and potentially hold valuable lessons for future strategic decision-making.

No description available.

This thesis examines the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention in the modern states system. Humanitarian intervention is defined as the use of military force across state boundaries, against the wishes of the target government, to protect the people from intolerable misrule and grave abuses of human rights. The aim of this thesis is to examine the problem of humanitarian intervention from the perspective of international society. This thesis is divided into two parts. Part One defines the concept, considers the historical and intellectual milieu in which the idea emerged and evolved, and examines the different grounds upon which states have justified a right of intervention. Part Two considers the implications for international society. International society exists when states have shared rules, values, and a mutual concern for order. Three primary arguments are made in Part Two: (1) Humanitarian intervention can co-exist with the rules of state sovereignty, non-intervention, and limitations on the use of force; (2) Humanitarian intervention has performed the historic function of expanding the values of international society; (3) Practised under the right circumstances, it can help promote international order rather than subvert it. As this thesis demonstrates, a more in-depth understanding of how past theorists and practitioners of humanitarian intervention have approached the problem can enrich the current discussion.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

The study which follows considers the current approach to State sovereignty, use of force, and human rights, in order to determine the balance which exists between these concepts. A shift in this balance determines the direction of development of the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ The investigation establishes that State sovereignty and certain human rights are at a point where they are viewed as equal and competing interests in the international arena. This leads to the question of whether or not the concept of humanitarian intervention has found any acceptance in international law. It is determined that the right to intervention rests exclusively with the United Nations Security Council. There are, however, obstacles to United Nations action, which necessitate either taking action to remove the obstacles, or finding an alternative to United Nations authorized action. The alternatives provided are unilateral interventions by regional organizations, groups of States or individual States, with interventions by regional organizations being favoured. The study further discusses the requirements which would make unilateral action more acceptable. These same requirements provide a standard against which the United Nations can measure its duty to intervene. Such an investigation was done by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and a synopsis of its Report and Recommendations are included. Finally, the question of responsibility is addressed. State and individual responsibility for two separate types of action are considered. The responsibility of States and individuals for initiating an intervention is considered under the topic of the crime of aggression. The responsibility of States and individual for exceeding the mandate of a legitimate intervention is considered under the heading of war crimes.

In modern international law, it is a near consensus that no state can use force against another - the main exceptions being self-defense and actions mandated by a U.N. Security Council resolution. However, one more potential exception exists: forcible intervention undertaken upon the invitation or consent of a government, seeking assistance in confronting armed opposition groups within its territory. This dissertation seeks to analyze the consent-exception in a wide context, and attempting to delineate its limits - including, perhaps, cases in which government consent power is not only negated, but might be transferred to opposition groups.