<p>This thesis was successfully defended on December 16th, 2013 at McMaster University.</p> / <p>In response to humanitarian crises within sovereign nation-states, many voices in global politics have begun to frame their arguments in terms of a responsibility to uphold basic human rights. The most prominent example of this theme is found in the idea of the responsibility to protect, an international framework for crisis response developed by an international commission and consolidated at the United Nations. A major challenge to this frame of thinking is the traditional disjuncture between the concept of ethico-political responsibility, on the one hand, and nation-state sovereignty on the other. A critical investigation of the ethical and political impulses articulated within the doctrine of the responsibility to protect demonstrates that much of the emergent consensus surrounding the responsibility to protect framework is premised on ideational and normative ambiguity. Part of the reason for this is the complexity of the idea of ‘responsibility’. This project seeks to explain some of the contestation of the responsibility to protect by first developing, and then applying, a conceptual framework that differentiates between monological impulses of ‘being responsible’ and more socially embedded practices situated within relational regimes of accountability and answerability.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

This document presents a dissertation research study that examined parents of preteens and the protectionist and empowerment Internet mediation and media literacy strategies they reported using to guide their child's use of the Internet. Parents' use of protectionist and empowerment strategies, their confidence level in enacting these strategies, their attitudes about efficacy of these strategies, and the relationship among their attitudes about children's use of the Internet to these areas were examined. The study used an online survey (N=236) of parents who have preteens with Internet access at home, and parent interviews from a sample of the survey respondents (N=40), to gather data from a nationwide sample of parents. Parents were asked questions about their use of, confidence in, and perceptions of effectiveness of protectionist and empowerment Internet mediation strategies, what topics related to Internet use they have discussed with their child, and overall their attitudes about the Internet and children. The survey results show that the majority of parents use a combination of protectionism and empowerment strategies, but more heavily use protectionist Internet mediation overall. Parents reported high confidence in using most of the strategies, with slightly less (but still notably high) confidence in using empowerment strategies. Even though parents reported feeling confident using empowerment strategies, they used them much less than protectionist strategies. Protectionist strategies were also ranked as more effective than empowerment ones. Parents' attitudes about the Internet were also associated with behaviors. Parents' level of comfort in using the Internet and computers was positively associated with their overall engagement in their preteens' Internet use, whether protectionism or empowerment. Parental attitude about the Internet being a good place for their child was associated with the likelihood to use protectionist strategies. However, parents who did not believe the Internet was a good place for their kids tended to talk about more Internet behavior topics with their child. The interviews with parents revealed a typology of protectionist and empowerment strategies with three major themes and several subthemes. The first theme included strategies for monitoring the Internet, the second illustrated the types of protectionist and empowerment behaviors parents use, and the third theme encompassed the values that emerged regarding parents' family communication and roles, comparisons to other families, and hopes about the potential benefits of the Internet in their child's life. Among the three themes parents voiced their life experiences, feelings, and concerns and how those influenced their decisions around protectionism or empowerment. Similar to the survey results, the interviews show that most parents used protectionist strategies, with the most widely used strategies including "POS" (parent over shoulder), and having the child use the Internet in a public space in the home. Few parents who were interviewed co-surf online with their preteens, ask questions about the websites their kids visit, or encourage their kids to create things online. However, parents who worked in fields related to media and technology were more likely to use empowerment strategies. The interviews revealed that parents' use of protectionist or empowerment strategies is complex, and is interwoven with their attitudes, values, concerns, and hopes for the potential of the Internet for their child. This study challenges the field to consider four myths about parents and Internet mediation, including: 1) Parents are either protectionist or empowerment, but not usually both; 2) Parents who are more confident using Internet mediation strategies will use them more often; and 3) Parents who think the Internet is not a good place for kids are more likely to use protectionist strategies; and 4) Parents who are uncomfortable with technology are more likely to use protectionist strategies. Possible reasoning for these misconceptions about parents, and how this speaks to research in the field, are explored. This study encourages parent media literacy education efforts to include a balance and progression in protectionist and empowerment strategies by proposing a Stair Steps of Parent Internet Mediation framework. This framework explains an aspirational process for parent education around the Internet to guide future efforts for those who work in parent media literacy education. / Mass Media and Communication

This thesis undertakes a critical approach to understanding the role of media within the responsibility to protect doctrine framework. The purpose of this work is to respond to the following main two questions: Are there non-violent means that can be applied within the context of the responsibility to protect, Pillar III in particular? Does the conceptualisation of the responsibility to protect and the role assigned to the media prevent or facilitate the application of non-violence to the resolution of humanitarian crises, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity? In order to investigate the above research questions, it adopts a nuanced Social Constructionist perspective, through which the social function of the media is highlighted. This is achieved through the application of Critical Discourse Analysis, which allowed critical engagement with the semantic position of ‘media’, ‘dialogue,’ and ‘non-violence’ within the founding documents published by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and the United Nations that developed the concept of the responsibility to protect between 2001 and 2018. Finally, the work explored how the responsibility to protect has been discussed in selected media outlets that are reflective of two different approaches to journalism, whose underpinning principles differ substantially: mainstream and peace journalism. By adopting the same methodological approach and applying it to the case of the NATO intervention to Libya in 2011 this section of this thesis critically investigated whether there is a difference in their discourse, and, if so, what this difference is.

Today, an estimated 65,3 million people are reported as forcibly displaced globally. This figure includes 40,8 million people who are considered to be internally displaced within their own country and therefore rely upon the protection of their state. State sovereignty implies that the main responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state. In situations where the state fails or is unwilling to fulfill its duty to protect the population, the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can be applied to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The purpose of this study is to review to what extent R2P provides protection for the rights of internally displaced persons and how R2P relates to the notion of human security. The theoretical framework is based on the concepts of human dignity, sovereignty, human security and R2P. Argumentation analysis was used in order to be able to compare the different arguments within the R2P discourse to determine whether the principle provides legitimate means for protection or not. The study shows that R2P provides several legitimate means for the protection of internally displaced people. Especially when it comes to measures preventing people from becoming displaced. However, the protection measures towards people already internally displaced can in several instances be regerded as insufficent and illegitimate. This is mainly due to the fact that the UN can undermine the legitimacy of the principle e.g. by obstructing aid support with veto decisions or lack strategies for reconstruction. The cooperation with other actors (AU, ICC) also shows that the protection of internally displaced persons may vary between states.

<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.

Thesis (MPhil (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Are violent and non-violent mass atrocities morally different? According to the United Nations, they are. But why? The answer to this question is important as it in part determines our obligations to people living in other countries. This thesis seeks to determine if violent and non-violent mass atrocities are morally different and, if not, whether the latter should be included under the United Nations’ doctrine of the responsibility to protect. In order to do this, the thesis first examines the conditions under which sovereignty exists in order to understand when intervention can occur. It also analyzes just war theory to discern when military intervention to halt nonviolent mass atrocities is justified. Having established these two concepts, the thesis then presents three arguments for why non-violent mass atrocities are morally indistinguishable from violent ones and should also be included under the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. A discussion of the feasibility of implementing this extension and the long-term effects of these types of interventions follows. Finally, the thesis contains three case studies in order to apply the arguments presented earlier. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is daar ‘n morele verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade? Volgens die Verenigde Nasies is daar so ‘n verskil, maar hoekom? Die antwoord tot hierdie vraag is deels belangrik omdat dit ons verantwoordelikhede tot mense in ander lande bepaal. In hierdie tesis word daar gepoog om te bepaal of daar so ‘n verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade is, en, indien nie, of nie-gewelddadige gruweldade ook moet tel onder die Verenige Nasies se verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm. Die tesis poog eerstens om die kondisies vir soewereiniteit te bepaal ten einde te probeer verstaan wanneer ‘n intervensie moreel regverdigbaar is. Dit analiseer ook die teorie van geregverdigde oorlogvoering ten einde te bepaal wanneer militêre inmenging om nie-gewelddadige gruweldade stop te sit geregverdig is. Na hierdie twee konsepte ondersoek is word daar drie argumente verskaf om aan te toon dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade nie moreel onderskeibaar is van gewelddadige gruweldade nie, en dus dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade onder die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm behoort te tel. Dit word gevolg deur ‘n bespreking van die praktiese haalbaarheid van die implementering van so ‘n uitbreiding van die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm, asook ‘n bespreking van die langtermyn effekte van hierdie tipes intervensies. Die tesis eindig met drie gevallestudies ten einde die argumente wat reeds gemaak is toe te pas.

This dissertation is an interdisciplinary study on the external ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) and international law. It focuses on the legal customary process on jus ad bellum by which states try to address the gap between the legitimacy and legality of humanitarian intervention to protect human security within a state against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The development of specific legal rights for the Security Council, regional organisations and ‘coalitions of the willing’ to protect by military means is examined through case studies of humanitarian interventions after the Cold War. Constructivist perspectives on security and norms are contrasted with legal positivist analyses of customary law, the applicable law on the use of force, and evolutionary interpretation and informal modification of treaties. Feminist theories and gender perspectives on human security, the R2P and humanitarian intervention are also integrated into the thesis. The decisions to authorise humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and Darfur confirm an external R2P for the Security Council in the form of a lex lata right to protect by military means where states have manifestly failed to do so and where peaceful means are considered inadequate. Furthermore, a similar customary right for regional organisations may also be emerging, when the state concerned manifestly fails to protect, the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act and peaceful means found inadequate. Finally, support is found for a lex ferenda right of regional organisations, coalitions of the willing and individual states to intervene by military means in ‘exceptional circumstances’ in accordance with the theories on ex post facto or implied authority, or the principle of necessity, to protect people in humanitarian crises where the criteria of the R2P doctrine are met.

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

in English The doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" has long been a controversial subject, both in law and in international relations, and remains so today. For humanitarian intervention is typical that it is a multidisciplinary issue. This problem is questionable not only from the point of view of law; however there also arise many ethic and moral dilemmas. The study handles the humanitarian intervention from the view of international law hence my aim is to outline the legal questions connected with this issue. At first it must be said that humanitarian intervention exists for a very long time although it has been subject of discussions for last ten or twenty years. What makes the humanitarian intervention such controversial point in question in contemporary international law? First of all the concept of humanitarian intervention must be distinguished from related concepts, such as "humanitarian action", "humanitarian operations", "humanitarian assistance", "intervention to protect nationals abroad", "intervention to facilitate self- determination", " pro-democratic intervention" and more other concepts closely link to humanitarian intervention If we start to concetrate just on humanitarian intervention there are questions to think about: Firstly, the main question is: What is the humanitarian...