The master thesis on the topic Why do states decide for or against the intervention in other states? Case Study: Libya and Syria is focused on analysing the motives of states, which are crucial for deciding to intervene or not to intervene in the territory of a foreign state. The whole issue is assessed from the perspective of two major theories of international relations - liberalism and realism. As the first research case was chosen the international community's intervention in Libya in 2011. The case was analysed from the perspective of Sweden, which took part in the operation by the deployment of eight fighters Jas 39 Gripen. As the second case was chosen the civil war in Syria, which has been underway since 2011 and whose situation would have required similar interference by the international community. However, this has not happen until that time, although the states are militarily involved in Syria. This case was analysed from the view of Russia, which did not take part in operation in Libya, but since September 2015 has been involved in fighting on the ground in Syria. As a last case was chosen Great Britain, which has militarily participated in both conflicts. For the analysis itself was used Ortega's typology of interventions, which was adapted for the purpose of this work. The different...

State failure impacts international relations through the spill-over effects it has beyond the failed state. The international response to state failure: The case of Somalia attempts to answer the research question "Is the international response to the failed Somalia more concerned with security (i.e. the fight against terrorism and piracy) than with nation building/democratization or humanitarian aid (refugees, poverty)? This question is answered through descriptive-analytical research approach using the Neo-Realist theory within a globalised world. Concepts of legitimacy, authority and sovereignty in relation to the international response are explored where response takes the form of Intervention and humanitarian intervention that could be informed by the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) or go as far as nation building. Various annually published indices that examine and rank failed states are analysed which collectively and independently indicate that Somalia has been the number one failed state since 2008. Historically, the international response to Somalia prior to state collapse in 1991 forms the foundation to the response as well as accounting for the importance of complex internal clan politics. The background to how the international response has been, plays a key role in understanding where the international response‘s motives are positioned on scale of humanitarian versus security motives for intervention. The regional dynamics are explained through the Regional Security Complex (RSC). The security power political motives are seen through Anti-terror motives in a post 9/11 world and the various international responses to the different forms of attempts of interim governments and their opposition movements. Most notably, Al Shabaab, who formally merged with Al Qaeda in 2012, has been a focus point for the international response. The African Union (AU) mission in Somalia AMISOM is analysed from its humble beginnings to a force to be reckoned with. Due to the failure in Somalia for over 20 years, 14 per cent of its population form part of the influential Diaspora group. State building has emerged as one of the major international responses to state failure with the motive of avoiding nationwide humanitarian crisis. Yet the inaction of the past decade has lead to large spread famine in 2011. The security motive of regional and international players has overshadowed a pure humanitarian response in the past but the immensity of the crisis in 2011 has lead to a global humanitarian response. A new window of opportunity has presented itself with the appointment of the new president of the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) in September 2012. The international response to state failure has placed security first and has acted accordingly to limit the international economic and security effects of piracy, terrorism and refugee flows. Nation building has come second although, there have been attempts at achieving a uniform response to the failure in Somalia, neo realist real politik reigns. The ideal of a golden mean, where a balance is achieved between security and humanitarian motives, could only be achieved if Somalia starts addressing its internal issues that have caused and resulted from the failure, which is far from straightforward. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

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.

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 / M.A. (International Politics)

The topic of this master thesis is the Relationship of the Federal Republic of Germany to the intervention in Libya. The aim of this master thesis is to answer the research question: "Why did not Germany support the intervention in Libya?". After the abstention on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, Germany was for not continuing human rights protection. The decision, to reject the intervention, has confirmed that Germany is still very skeptical regarding the involvement of its military personnel and assets abroad. The decision of the Security Council is not only a milestone in German history, but also a milestone for the international community. For the first time has the United Nations Security Council agreed to use military forces against a functioning state with the aim of protecting civilian population. This master thesis is a single case study; through which the author examines a very specific situation when Germany decided not to participate in the voting process regarding the intervention in Libya. The theoretical part of the thesis is based on the constructivist theory, furthermore the thesis focuses also on the concepts of civilian power, multilateralism, culture of restraint, and the protection of human rights. All these terms have significant influence on German foreign...

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis.

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis / European Community-funded Sustainable Peacebuilding (SPBUILD) Research Training Network; University of Deusto’s ‘RETOS’ research group on socio-cultural and human rights challenges in a changing world.

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 / M.A. (International Politics)

La « responsabilité de protéger », concept politique adopté en 2005 pour prévenir et mettre fin aux atrocités criminelles, repose sur un premier pilier —l'obligation de l'Etat de protéger ses populations— dont le consensus apparent a conduit à un manque d’analyse institutionnelle dans sa double dimension constitutionnelle comparée et internationale. Or, l’obligation de l’Etat incombe enparticulier au chef d'Etat. Son obligation de protéger est un élément commun de définition de sa fonction, mais aussi un critère essentiel de différenciation —selon que le chef d’Etat relève d’un modèle étatiste, privilégiant la protection de l’Etat quitte à suspendre le droit, ou d’un modèle libéral, privilégiant la protection de la Constitution et la soumission permanente de l’action politique au droit. La thèse analyse d'abord les sources de l'obligation de protéger du chef d’Etat,successivement théorisée, constitutionnalisée et internationalisée, puis l'exécution de cette obligation résultant de prérogatives, d'immunités et de contrôles de la protection. Les sources de l’obligation révèlent que le chef d’Etat, à l’interface des ordres juridiques interne et international, aune obligation spécifique, non réductible à celle de l’Etat ou de l’individu, qui comporte à la fois une dimension négative (ne pas commettre de crimes contre la population) et une dimension positive(empêcher la commission de tels crimes) et dont l’internationalisation permet de combler les lacunes des Constitutions. Si l’exécution par le chef d’Etat de son obligation de protéger, par la mise en oeuvre de ses prérogatives de protection, est soumise à un contrôle croissant, tant politique que juridictionnel, ce processus reste néanmoins inachevé, faute d'une responsabilité politique internationale, systématique et institutionnalisée. La thèse conclut à l’utilité d'une individualisation de la « responsabilité de protéger » et à l’enrichissement de ce concept par le contrôle de l’obligation de protéger du chef d’Etat. / The political concept of the “responsibility to protect” was adopted in 2005 to prevent and p ut anend to criminal atrocities. The apparent consensus over its first pillar, the State’s obligation to protect its populations, has resulted in a lack of institutional analyses regarding its combined comparative constitutional and international aspects. Importantly, the State’s obligation rests in particular with the Head of State. The obligation to protect is common to all heads of state, but it also differentiates among them, depending on whether their obligation is State-oriented (with the aim to protect the State, even if that requires the suspension of the rule of law) or Rule-of-law oriented (with the aim to protect a liberal constitutional order while always subjecting political actionto the rule of law). The thesis begins with an analysis of the sources of law relating to the Head of State’s obligation to protect, as it was successively theorised, constitutionalised and internationalised. It then turns to the execution of this obligation, which derives from the Head of State’s prerogatives, the relevant immunities involved and available institutional review over his orher activities. The study of the sources reveals that the Head of State (at the interface between the domestic and the international legal orders) is bound by a specific obligation, which exceeds the confines of the obligations of either the State or the individual. This obligation is both negative and positive as it requires both not to commit crimes against the population, and to prevent and put an end to such crimes. Its international dimension supplements the missing parts in the Constitutions.The execution of this obligation, by the implementation of the Head of State’s prerogatives, is subject to an increasing political and judicial control. However, this control remains under construction due to a lack of systematic and institutionalized international political responsibility. The thesis concludes that the “responsibility to protect” could be usefully “individualized” and enriched by institutional supervision and judicial review of the Head of State’s obligation to protect.