This thesis considers the issue of the Responsibility to Rebuild in International Law. It posits that the R2R must be re-elevated to significance as a conceptual, normative, and functional element of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), with its institutional homes in the United Nation’s framework and the Secretary-General’s function adequately articulated. In most instances, the 2009 three-pillar R2P framework functions effectively, but it has the flaw of burying and overlooking the critical value of the initial ICISS third pillar, the responsibility to rebuild and reconstruct war-ravaged communities’ threshold of viability and self-sufficiency. This thesis draws some crucial insight from the significant international interventions of the twenty-first century and recalling the scope in which R2P was first conceived to illustrate the unique characteristics of its contribution to global politics or international policy. This thesis addresses the question of who should rebuild after a war. The ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis,’ which suggests that those who have been engaged in the battle - including the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor, or humanitarian intervener - should be charged with the responsibility of rebuilding, is held by many leading proponents of the importance of jus post-Bellum for Just War Theory. On the other hand, this thesis argues that there is a mutual, international responsibility to rebuild that should be delegated solely based on the agent's capacity to rebuild rather than the belligerents. / Graduate / 2022-08-09

This study is about the principle “Responsibility to Protect” and its implementation in several countries. The purpose of this study is to examine why the implementation of “Responsibility to Protect” has been used differently in similar situations. To limit my study I have chosen to examine two countries that have two different results on similar issues. I have chosen to study the conflict/civil war in Libya and Syria. The reason why I have chosen these countries is because these conflicts have similar causes and similar history, but how the international community responded differently and has argued various. This study will also highlight and observe the difficulties that the principle faces. For example the veto right in the united nation security council, and also the principle of sovereignty. At the end of this study I discuss the principle in general, what I think about it and how the principle “Responsibility to Protect” can be improved itself and develop to be more powerful and fulfill its purpose, to Protect civilians from genocide, crime against humanity and towards war crime.

Over the last two decades the frequency of humanitarian interventions in Africa, delivered by a wide range of actors, has increased. The British military intervention in the Sierra Leonean civil war in the early 2000s is often cited as an example of successful intervention and solidified Security Sector Reform (SSR) as a key component of state-building and development. Yet in-depth analysis of the long-term legacies of this ‘successful’ intervention are sparse and there remains a notable dearth in research exploring the British involvement from the perspectives of those directly involved or affected. This qualitative research provides a novel outlook by exploring micro-level experiences, thus addressing this lacuna through examining the legacies within Sierra Leone and in British foreign policy from an experiential perspective. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is used as a framework in order to draw out implications for global intervention practice, as arguably R2P must also be accompanied by a responsibility to fully understand the legacy of this social phenomenon. A themed analysis of original data explores the link between official narratives and the perspectives of those on the ground, often exposing a disconnect and identifying important nuances within the interpretation of the success of the British intervention. Through a critical analysis of these experiences significant questions are raised regarding the dynamics between intervening forces and the affected population; perceptions of legitimacy; accountability; and the implications for R2P more broadly.

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.

<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.

No description available.

[pt] Esta dissertação oferece uma análise crítica do discurso da Responsabilidade de Proteger (R2P). Para isso, eu sigo o entendimento pós-estruturalista da língua como performatividade, isto é, eu entendo que língua em uso (discurso) tem um papel no processo de construção de subjetividades. Eu adoto a estrutura de análise de dupla leitura de Richard Ashley para problematizar o discurso da R2P. Na primeira leitura, eu leio o discurso tradicional da R2P, começando por algumas de suas fundações no direito internacional e em debates sobre intervenção, soberania e segurança humana, seguindo para as discussões que ajudaram a constituir e delinear o escopo desse conceito. Esse discurso, como podemos ver, foi proposto como se fosse para a proteção de um universal (a humanidade). Dessa forma, na segunda leitura eu proponho uma reversão nas estruturas hierárquicas sobre as quais esse discurso foi erguido. Começando com uma crítica à estrutura da modernidade, eu argumento que o discurso da R2P, como parte dessa estrutura, reproduz suas lógicas de diferenciação e práticas de exclusão. Ao trazer o corpo daqueles que sofrem com a violência humanitária, eu questiono o que aconteceria se a R2P fosse de fato universal. Meu argumento é que, ao reivindicar um universal enquanto diferencia entre aqueles que promovem a proteção, aqueles que são protegidos, aqueles que poderiam ser protegidos mas sofreram os danos colaterais da violência humanitária, e aqueles que não podem ser protegidos, o discurso da R2P performa na constituição dessas distintas subjetividades. / [en] This dissertation offers a critical analysis of the discourse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). For this, I follow the poststructuralist understanding of language as performativity, i.e., I understand that language in use (discourse) has a role in the process of construction of subjectivities. I adopt Richard Ashley s structure of analysis of double reading to problematize the discourse of R2P. In the first reading, I read the traditional discourse of R2P, starting from some of its foundations in international law and in debates about intervention, sovereignty, and human security, following to the discussions that helped to constitute and delineate the scope of this concept. This discourse, we see, was proposed as if it were for the protection of a universal (the humanity). Accordingly, in the second reading I propose a reversal in the hierarchical structures upon which this discourse has been erected. Starting with a critique of the structure of modernity, I argue that the R2P discourse, as part of this structure, reproduces its logic of differentiations and exclusionist practices. By bringing the body of those who suffer from the humanitarian violence, I question what would happen if R2P were in fact for a universal. My argument is that, by claiming for a universal while it differentiates between those that provide protection, those that are protected, those that could be protected but suffered the collateral damages of the humanitarian violence, and those that cannot be protected, the discourse of R2P performs in the constitution of these distinct subjectivities.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.