This study focuses on humanitarian intervention in Iraq with a special focus on Iraqi Kurdistan. The purpose of the study is to analyze humanitarian intervention from different perspectives, especially in political matters. Despite this, a reasonable selection process is needed as not all international political aspects are particularly relevant. There are aspects which, although closely linked to humanitarian intervention, do not need a detailed analysis due to the already extensive literature and the established nature of the relevant regulation which does not analyze much new information. The study aims to apply theories and concepts in an analysis of humantarian intervention by applying a theoretical model based on humanitarian intervention and the UN's policy process. The analysis will focus on three dimensions: content, organization and legitimacy. By exploring these dimensions, the study will examine and evaluate different aspects of the intervention, including the political arguments, the structure and functioning of the UN policy process, and the legitimacy and support for the intervention from different actors and the world community. The method used in the study is qualitative research to define humanitarian intervention which is heavily dependent on the theoretical model. The most important results of the analysis are that there are no standards for when the UN system for crisis management should be activated and that the political unity in the Security Council is not as strong as the principles express. Other results are that thispolitical field, especially the political decisions about international armed conflicts, has countless very interesting aspects. However, a detailed presentation of these aspects requires a more specific study dealing with this topic, rather than an essay on humanitarian intervention.

Throughout history, recurring instances of genocide have subjected specific groups and minorities to severe human rights violations. The most significant aspect of genocide is the international community's response, which often proves ineffective due to delayed reactions and self-interest. Currently, the Uyghur genocide is unfolding, with millions of innocent Uyghur Muslims enduring arbitrary detentions and being labeled as terrorists by the People's Republic of China (PRC). This thesis aims to investigate the discursive strategies employed by the international community when discussing the human rights abuses targeting the Uyghur minority in Xingang. Additionally, it will analyze China's response to the international backlash and its utilization of sophisticated discursive methods. Through a discourse analysis and a theoretical framework rooted in poststructuralism, incorporating concepts of discourse and deconstruction, both perspectives will be critically examined and compared.

There is much debate among genocide scholars as to the causes and even accurate definitions of genocide. Early warning developed to address the increasing need for humanitarian intervention in violent conflicts around the world. As a subset of genocide studies, early warning seeks to go beyond explaining the causes of genocide. The early warning model created here uses six indicator variables - government, leaders/elites, followers, non-followers/bystanders, outsider group, and environment - to detect the likelihood of genocide within a given case study. Four cases were chosen - Kenya, Nigeria, Yemen, and Ethiopia - and analyzed using the indicator variables to determine if these violent conflicts may already be or may become genocides. Preliminary findings show that the civilian outsider group is a vital component when determining whether or not a conflict is or may become a "limited-genocide" and that genocides are a function of the interaction of the six indicator variables and not just their presence. Other implications for sovereignty and humanitarian intervention are discussed.

No description available.

<p>At present, the United Nations Security Council has exclusive power over the authorization of humanitarian intervention. Any intervention, regardless of intentions or success, which proceeds without explicit authorization from the Security Council is both illegal and of questionable legitimacy. However, there are strong reasons to believe that the Security Council is a sub-optimal decision making body and therefor ill-suited for this task. The purpose of this thesis is to explore these reasons and propose that Standardized Regional Organizations are an ideal alternative to the Security Council.</p> <p>This thesis proceeds in three chapters. The first chapter discusses the intricacies of humanitarian intervention and the inherent conflict between state sovereignty and international human rights protection. This chapter explores the core issues which an authorizing institution would have to weigh in any humanitarian crisis. The second chapter outlines the exact role which an authorizing institution plays in the norm of humanitarian intervention and the specific qualities which an ideal institution requires. The third and final chapter utilizes conclusions drawn in the first two to critically examine potential alternatives to the Security Council. After demonstrating that all the alternatives available in the literature are problematic, and Standardized Regional Institutions are proposed and defended.</p> <p>The Standardized Regional Organization proposal calls for Regional Organizations to adopt a new, standardized institutional model which will massively improve their ability to properly deal with humanitarian crises. By building transparency safeguards and accountability mechanisms into Regional Organizations’ decision making procedures they become highly reliable bodies for the authorization of humanitarian intervention. This approach captures the standing practical benefits inherent to Regional Organizations and adds philosophical rigour to their decision making procedures.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

<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)

No / The dichotomy between prohibitive law and moral responsibility is at the centre of debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, political interests remain an important factor not only in determining and tempering the humanitarian impulses of states, but also for gauging their more general adherence to the rule of law. The humanitarian intervention debate only has meaning in a context in which there is general, routine adherence to the non-interventionist norm of the international system, codified as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The `Bush Doctrine¿ of pre-emptive self-defence alters the political and politico-legal context that has until now given the humanitarian intervention debate its meaning and importance. Given this, together with a more general loosening of the strictures prohibiting or limiting the use of force, there is good cause for concern about the foundations of the post-1945 international order. The debate about humanitarian intervention can no longer abstract the tension between law and morality from a political arena that is facing such profound challenges.

This assessment addresses the intervention of intrastate conflict through the coordination of humanitarian aid and military force. The coordination, known as humanitarian intervention, dates back to the philosophy of Hugo Grotius and the debate of the Just War doctrine. Through the evolution of international law and the concept of sovereignty, justification of intervention continued to develop though the establishment of the United Nations Charter. Several moral, legal and political debates that formed in early philosophies persist through the implementation of humanitarian intervention in modern warfare. The historical background and of philosophical challenges of humanitarian intervention are reflected in recent cases studies such as the conflicts in Somalia, former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. With the consideration of this assessment, one can conclude the necessary conditions needed for a successful humanitarian intervention. In the twenty-first century, a time when weapons range from nuclear arms to homemade explosives and when political instability endangers an interconnected international community, there exists a need for adaptation to any given threat. Humanitarian intervention is one possible solution to redress human rights violations and maintain international peace and security.

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.

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.