Humanitarian intervention lies at the fault-line in international relations between the principles of international law and state sovereignty (pluralism) on the one hand, and morality and the protection of human rights (solidarism) on the other. Whereas the pluralist international-society theory defines humanitarian intervention as a violation of the cardinal rules of order, it is being challenged by the solidarist view, that seeks to strengthen the legitimacy of the international community by developing its commitment to justice. As a result, a solidarist international community is one in which states accept a moral responsibility to protect the security, not only of their own citizens, but of humanity everywhere. The humanitarian tragedies in Somalia, Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s and in Darfur currently, have highlighted to the international community the need for the notion of sovereignty to be re-defined, to permit intervention in support of the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect. In the 21st century, a state that violates the fundamental norms of human rights by failing to provide for the safety, security and well-being of its citizens creates a legal and moral burden on the international community to act. This dissertation contends that the international community has a legal and moral responsibility to intervene to prevent humanitarian emergencies. To test the veracity of this thesis, it was assessed against a number of case studies that span India's intervention into East Pakistan in 1971 to the ongoing crisis in Darfur in 2006. While many aspects of humanitarian intervention remain contentious this dissertation found that there is a trend towards the solidarist approach that is reflected in the emerging international norm of the "responsibility to protect". Further, it confirmed that the most successful interventions involve a range of actors, usually, the United Nations and/or a regional organisation, backed by a hegemonic power. Finally, it found that a successful humanitarian intervention is dependent upon the international community's commitment to understanding the gravity of the situation at hand and, if necessary, confronting the Westphalian tradition of sovereignty, to provide the appropriate institutional support and resources, and the political will to mobilise that capacity in the face of other priorities and preoccupations.

Thesis (M.A.) in Communication--University of Maine, 2008. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 157-161).

Settler colonisation produced particular colonial subjects: indigene and settler. The specificity of the relationship between these subjects lies in the act of settlement; an act of colonial violence by which the settler physically and symbolically displaces the indigene, but never totally. While indigenes may be physically displaced from their territories, they continue to occupy a marginal location within the settler nation-state. Symbolically, as settlers set out to distinguish themselves from the metropolitan 'motherlands', indigenous cultures become a rich, 'native' source of cultural authenticity to ground settler nationalisms. The result is a complex of conflictual and ambivalent relations between settler and indigene.This thesis investigates the ongoing impact of this colonial relation on the contemporary identities and relations of Maori (indigene) and Pakeha (settlers) in Aotearoa New Zealand. It centres on the operation of discursive strategies used by both Maori and Pakeha in constructing their identities and the relationship between them. I analyse 'found' texts - non-fiction books, media and academic texts - to identify discourse 'at work', as New Zealanders make and reflect on their identity claims. This investigation has two aims. Firstly, I map the terrain of discursive strategies that bear the traces of colonial domination and resistance. Secondly, I seek to explore the possibilities for replacing colonial relations with non-dominating forms of relationship between Maori and Pakeha.The thesis is in two parts. Part I focuses on theories of identity, centring on essentialism and hybridity. I argue that both modes of theorising bear the traces of colonial relations and neither offers the means to 'escape' colonial relations. Part II focuses on theories of intersubjectivity, bringing relationality to the fore. I argue that epistemological relations (including identity relations) always involve a degree of violence and exclusion and that, consequently, these necessary relations must be held in tension with an awareness of the ethical dimension of intersubjective engagement. Utilising the ethics of Emmanuel Lévinas, I argue that a combination of an ethical orientation towards the other and a 'disappointed' orientation towards politics and epistemology, offers the means to developing non-dominating relations with the cultural other.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.