LL.M. (International Law) / In 2000, the government of Canada set up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (“ICISS”).1 This was in a response to the request of the erstwhile secretary-general of the United Nations (“UN”) to the general assembly in 1999 and in 2000 to address the dilemma of intervention in situations of mass murder and egregious violations of human rights ...

No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this mini-thesis is to examine the inconsistency in the implementation of the responsibility to protect (RTP) principle during armed conflicts with specific focus on the case of Libya and Darfur. Furthermore the mini-thesis scrutinizes the criteria which are utilized universally and questions whether the principle is determined by factors such as economics, politics and location depending on each crisis. The significance of this minithesis derives from the need to make a contribution to the new interventionism debate and contribute to the growing literature on the doctrine of the RTP especially when it comes to the inconsistencies during its application which seems to be on the rise especially in the African continent. The mini-thesis was guided by the following assumption that there are inconsistencies when it comes to the application of the RTP under humanitarian law. The mini-thesis also embarks on an enquiry into the legal aspects of the RTP doctrine and the legal status of humanitarian intervention. It is worth noting that the RTP doctrine does not concentrate on every human rights violation or abuse of power, even when these are very serious as in the case of Sudan. It certainly does not empower or establish an obligation on the international community to respond by over-riding the offending state’s sovereignty. The initial intention of the RTP was aimed at preventing mass attacks or large scale violations involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It is greatly disappointing to note that the international community at large tends to overlook the more severe crises which have more casualties and turn their eyes on less serious humanitarian crises. This raises concern about the extent of the inconsistency in the application of the RTP. The question that begs an answer therefore is why intervene in Libya and not Darfur? In conclusion to this mini-thesis I came to the realization that inconsistencies within the application of the RTP exist because humanitarian intervention under the RTP has a massive political element which affects implementation. The RTP is often used as a justification for states to act in conflicts when there is no domestic support for more direct political intervention. Thus, I believe that intervention can never be completely humanitarian driven until the five RTP precautionary principles are used as a guideline or criteria for interventions.

Masters of Art / Intervention is a controversial issue in international relations. In recent years, the issue of intervention has been further complicated by the attention given to terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the United States (US) by the terrorist group under the name of Al Qaeda. In 2005, the United Nations (UN) member states adopted the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle that was coined by the Canadian government to give intervention a multilateral dimension. The R2P principle was established to protect civilians from four atrocity crimes, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. R2P gives the international community authority to intervene in situations where states are failing to protect their citizens from the aforementioned atrocity crimes.

The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council. / Master of Arts / The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. The study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to protect. By analyzing the humanitarian intervention of Kosovo and the prior Responsibility to Protect cases of Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011), three criteria are established to determine if use of Responsibility to Protect is appropriate. The case of Kosovo is analyzed since the Russian Federation used this to further justify its intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires the following: (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's right to rule over its own population; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent only since its case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council.

This thesis examines how the norm of nonintervention has interacted with the norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to construct a new normative architecture of international order. Nonintervention has long served as a deeply embedded norm in the international normative architecture. However, conflicting interpretations of how to respond in cases of egregious intra-state human rights abuses have fuelled contestation surrounding the potential for international protection measures including the projection of force. Drawing from international relations theory, I embrace a social constructivist approach with insights from the English School to explore the nature of normative structures and their role in undergirding international society. While foreign policy decisions reflect a spectrum of normative and non-normative considerations, norms serve as resources that guide and shape the behaviour of actors. Outlining the emergence of R2P and its invocation through empirical cases of mass atrocities in Sri Lanka (2009), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011-2015), this thesis traces the contestation of nonintervention through cases of intra-state humanitarian crises. I conclude that nonintervention has recurrently challenged R2P as a means of securing international order and the rights of independent political communities, with its persistent salience serving as a barrier to intervention and more expansive interpretations of R2P.

Sedan andra världskrigets slut har internationell debatt förekommit angående hur internationellt bemötande bör ske då en främmande befolkning utsätts för våld och övergrepp av dess egen statsledning. Ofta har inom ramen för denna debatt normen om icke-intervention kommit att ställas mot ett globalt förespråkande av mänskliga rättigheter.Efter uppmaning av FN:s tidigare Generalsekreterare Kofi Annan, upprättades år 2000 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Kommissionens arbete mynnade ut i en rapport benämnd The Responsibility to Protect, vilken syftar till att söka internationell konsensus kring möjligheten att genomföra intervention med humanitärt skydd som mål, samt rekommendationer om hur en sådan bör ske.Syftet med uppsatsen är att genom kvalitativ textanalys söka svar på i vilken omfattning rekommendationerna inom The Responsibility to Protect överensstämmer med internationellt agerande under den inomstatliga konflikten i Libyen 2011.Studiens resultat visar på att internationellt agerande från FN, dess medlemsländer samt internationella organisationer till viss del överensstämmer med rapportens förespråkade konflikthantering innan demonstrationer utbröt i Libyen. Vidare visar studien att internationellt agerande väl överensstämmer med The Responsibility to Protect´s rekommendationer, då de libyska demonstrationerna eskalerade och mynnade ut i en inomstatlig väpnad konflikt. / Since the end of the Second World War there has been an international debate on how to address conflictsituations, where foreign populations are victims of abuse by actions perpetrated by their own government. Thetraditional norm of non-intervention has been confronted with growing support of global perspectives of humanrights.After several pleas from the UN Secretary-General to form international consensus on interventions for humanprotection purposes, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was formed in 2000.The commission’s work led to a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The report refers to a broadspectrum of recommendations on when and how intervention for human protection purposes should beauthorized and carried out.This study aims, through a qualitative text analysis, to find the extent to which international actions towardsLibya during 2011, complies with guidelines given within The Responsibility to Protect.The result shows partial conformable actions from international actors in an initial phase, and after Libyaprotests escaladed in early 2011, the study indicates that international measures and actions seems to reflect amajor part of recommendations given within the scope of The Responsibility to Protect.

This thesis aims to critically assess the threemain approaches for the legal and political future of humanitarianintervention. It does so through the use of a normative and, to a lesser extent, a dogmatic methodology. The thesis thoroughly examines whether the relevant provisions of the UN Charter provide a satisfactory legal framework. Acknowledging the deficiencies of existing international law, the thesis brings underscrutiny the position that the law should be disregarded. Finding such a worldorder to be unacceptable, the thesis further sets off to explore potential legal and political reforms. The conclusion of the analysis is that a reform must consist of two elements in order to be both effective and legitimate. First, the codification of criteria under which humanitarian intervention is recognised as a legal right. Second, an institutional reform that mitigates the opportunities for states to pursue their political self-interests.

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.

Many scholars perceive state sovereignty as absolute, inviolable, indivisible, final, binding and stagnant. That perception emanates from inter alia political, social, cultural and environmental contexts of the modern era. Most literature converge that the doctrine of sovereignty first received official codification at the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporary international norms, particularly the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, are arguably an environment and culture of current global politics. With human rights and democracy having taken centre-stage in contemporary political discourses, sovereignty is affected and influenced by such developments in international politics. Hence the argument that globalisation, among others, has eroded, weakened and rendered the doctrine of sovereignty obsolete. This study, using Zimbabwe‟s Operation Murambatsvina as a case study, demonstrates that sovereignty is neither unitary in practice, nor sacrosanct; it is dynamic and evolves, thus, in need of constant reconfiguration. To this end, the study uses the qualitative research methodology. / Political Sciences