<p>The issue of humanitarian intervention presents a perennial conundrum and is one of the hottest topics in contemporary international relations. It contains aspects of both idealism and realism and is largely an issue born out of the end of the Cold War. This paper provides a theoretical and empirical evaluation of this normative shift in interstate affairs.</p><p>The vast growing body of human rights law serves as one indication that international law is changing in terms of a shift of focus, away from states, and towards the international community made up of individuals. However, in absence of a formal agreement on how and to what scope international law has changed, conclusions can only be made based on the emerging, limited and fragile body of state and UN practices. If such a shift were to be accompanied by a corresponding empirical transformation, it would undoubtedly represent a huge leap forward towards a more solidarist underpinned world order. The present trends within international relations represent at least an aspiration towards some more clearly envisioned solidarity. As international actors interact, they generate new norms, but one must remember that the actors and their practices are themselves products of older norms. The present structures of international society are not ready to accommodate such change.</p><p>Human rights are important, not only because they become embedded in institutions and create new coalitions between actors, but also because they help states redefine their national interests and identities, as well as help them to choose among conflicting priorities such as sovereignty and humanity. Under the present global system, any discussion of the international protection of human rights and humanitarian intervention implies changes in both norms and practices. The theoretical part of this paper provides a framework for assessing these recent developments by determining first, how and why values are shared, and what these values need to be in order for international society to be categorized as solidarist. The empirical part, then moves on to assess state and UN practice in order to conclude if solidarism is a reality in today’s international society.</p><p>In this paper, I argue that there is an international consensus in terms of a right to humanitarian intervention in cases of threats against international peace and security and where the UN S.C has given its authorization. Furthermore, even though not clearly establishing any such right to intervention, cases like East Timor, northern Iraq and Kosovo points to a normative shift where the redefinition of the concept of sovereignty might become a reality. This new consensus is a product of mainly three recent developments: a more expansive interpretation of the S.C on what constitutes a threat to international peace and security, the revolution of information technology that has heightened awareness of conflict and suffering, and the increased robustness of international human rights norms. While diversity continues to characterize the 21st century, there is a greater degree of consensus on the meaning of sovereignty and human rights today than most pluralists suggest. Nevertheless, the practical behaviour of the international community shows that the commitment to solidarism remains minimal.</p>

This study is concerned with Canadas policy towards peace, security and development in Africa. It examines Canadas response to these issues in relation to the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD), the African Union Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Security Mechanism. With the intensification of violent conflicts in parts of Africa and their impact on individuals, communities, and socioeconomic development, African leaders transformed the OAU into the AU and established APSA to promote regional and human security in Africa. At the sub-regional level, West African leaders established the ECOWAS Security Mechanism to address the (human) security deficit in the West Africa region. These institutional transformations coincided with the launching of the NEPAD, which became one of the central instruments of engagement between Africa and the international community to address the peace, security and development challenges on the African continent. Canadas response to the NEPAD under the Liberal government of Jean Chrtien came in the form of a $500 million Canada fund for Africa (CFA) that among other things supported the capacity building of APSA and the ECOWAS Security Mechanism. The promotion of human security played a key role in Canadas approach to the AU and ECOWAS peace and security capacity building. I use a non-imperial internationalist approach that draws on the theoretical insights of a constructivist approach to international relations to provide an understanding of the Canadian governments policy. I argue that the Canadian governments policy towards the AU and ECOWAS can be understood in terms of the moral identity that Canada has built or acquired over the years in Africa. While this moral identity provides the means through which Canadian interests are pursued in Africa, it appears that the interest in maintaining this image has overshadowed the need for the Canadian government to craft an overarching policy and put resources behind the rhetoric of promoting peace and security, particularly human security in Africa.

<p>Humanitär intervention är ett begrepp inom internationella relationer som väcker många känslor och frågor. Trots att idén om att använda våld för att stoppa brott mot de mänskli-ga rättigheter kan verka attraktivt från ett moraliskt perspektiv, vilket man i århundraden har gjort, har denna praktik varit synnerligen oregelbunden. Detta i hög grad beroende på den ambivalens som finns inför de internationella normer som skall reglera staters använ-dande av militärt våld.</p><p>Synen på humanitära interventioner har ändrats i överensstämmelse med de förändringar som skett inom det internationella systemet. Dessa ändringar har, till viss del, medfört en förändrad syn på de normer som legitimerar användandet av våld inom det internationella samfundet.</p><p>Humanitära interventioner som begrepp och praktik innehåller många dilemman i vår tid. Detta eftersom det berör traditionella normer av suveränitet och ickeintervention, som är de främsta byggstenarna för det moderna internationella systemet, tillika del av Förenta Na-tionernas (FN) stadgar. Stater är i dag förbjudna att använda militärt våld som ett instru-ment i deras utrikespolitik, förutom i fall av självförsvar eller i kollektiva säkerhetsåtgärder, beslutade av FN:s säkerhetsråd. Det handlar även om att det finns traditionella normer som förbjuder intervention i andra staters interna angelägenheter. Dessutom ska allt militärt våld auktorernas av säkerhetsrådet, som har till uppgift att upprätthålla internationell fred och säkerhet.</p><p>Med detta perspektiv för ögonen, är användandet av våld för att genomdriva internationella humanitära normer, mycket begränsad enligt internationell lag. Detta har i många situatio-ner skapat ett svart hål när det kommer till att stoppa allvarliga förbrytelser mot de mänsk-liga rättigheter, genom internationellt ingripande. Ovanstående har lett till att man börjat diskutera och ifrågasätta traditionella principer som har varit ledande för det internationella samarbetet, vilket i sin tur skulle kunna öppna vägen för vissa interventioner med humani-tära syften.</p><p>Denna diskussion handlar om suveränitet, internationella lag och det handlar om moraliska ställningstaganden. Realismen har under lång tid varit den ledande skolan i internationella relationer och därmed lagt grunden för hur man ska tolka internationella konflikter, krigs-föring och interventioner. På senare tid har Realismen utmanats av andra teoretiska skolor och ställningstaganden som ifrågasätter Realismens förmåga att förklara händelser på den internationella arenan.</p><p>Genom att jämföra Realismens ståndpunkter, gentemot humanitära interventioner, med Utilitarismen och den Kosmopolitiska skolan, har uppsatsen kunnat presentera olika bilder av den problematik som humanitära interventioner idag står inför och därmed måste för-hålla sig till. Igenom att granska konflikten i Rwanda 1994 och Kosovo 1999 har problema-tiken runt humanitära interventioner ytterligare kunnat belysas och diskuteras. Detta har skett genom en kvalitativ textanalys.</p><p>Nyckelord: Humanitär Intervention, Suveränitet, Icke-intervention, Internationell lag, Rea-lism, Kosmopolitanism, Utilitarism, Moral</p> / <p>Humanitarian intervention is a concept within international relations that provoke many diverse feelings and questions. Although the idée too use force in the name of ending crimes against human rights may seem attractive from a moral perspective, its practise has been highly irregular. This is much due to the norms that regulate states use of military force.</p><p>The view on humanitarian interventions has changed in unity with the changes that have appeared within the international system. These changes have, to some extent, brought on a transformation in how we look upon the norms that regulate the use of force within the international community.</p><p>Humanitarian intervention is also a concept and practises that creates many dilemmas in our time. This because it touches and concerns traditional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention, that is not only fundamental building stones for the modern international system, but also a immense part of the structure of the United Nations (UN). States today, are forbidden to use military force as an integrated part of their foreign policy, except in cases of self-defence or collective security measures authorised by the UN Security Council. It is also about customary norms, which declare that states should not interfere in other states internal affaires.</p><p>In the company of the above stated, the use of force to implement humanitarian norms is fairly limited according to international law. This has repeatedly created a gap when it comes to stop serious violations against human rights through international interference. The above stated has led to an intense discussion concerning how traditional principals may have to chance in ways that better can guide international cooperation’s in these matters. This discussion may in turn lead to an opening for some sort of interventions with humanitarian purposes.</p><p>This discussion, furthermore, concerns sovereignty, international law, and it is about morality. Realism has for a long period of time been the leading school in international relations and has laid the ground for how we should interpret international conflicts, war and intervention. Recently, this school has been forced too respond to opposition from some other theoretical schools; questioning Realisms ability to explain activities on the international arena.</p><p>By comparing Realism opinion toward humanitarian interventions, with the Utilitarian and Cosmopolitan school, this thesis has been able to present different pictures describe the complexity of humanitarian interventions. Through analyse of the conflicts taking place in Rwanda 1994 and in Kosovo 1999, the issue of humanitarian intervention has been further scrutinised and discussed. This has been done through a qualitative text analyse.</p><p>Keywords: Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Non-intervention, International law, Realism, Cosmopolitanism, Utilitarianism, Morality</p>

Humanitarian intervention becomes a focal point of international debate because it seems to be morally right but legally wrong. It challenges the principle of non-intervention and non-use of force encompassed in the Charter of the United Nations (UN), which was established in 1945 to prevent aggressions that led to the two world wars. However, since the 1990s, state practices of military intervention to protect human rights increased dramatically, many of which were even endorsed by the UN or in close cooperation with it. In other words, the UN is the most important, or insofar the only acceptable, body to authorize and legitimize any military operations with humanitarian rationale. This research aims at investigating the limitations of the UN in coordinating its responsibilities of maintaining peace and security and of protecting human rights. Two cases, Rwanda in 1994 and Sudan from 2003 on, are chosen as examples to probe into the practice of the UN and try to determine what has changed and what remains steadfast of the UN practice in humanitarian intervention in these ten years. By focusing on the cases of Rwanda and Sudan, this thesis is intended to address the following questions: (1) In the past decade, has the UN system become more comfortable with humanitarian intervention? (2) What are the limitations of the UN in conducting “humanitarian intervention”? What causes these limitations? And why? (3) What can be done to improve the incompetence of the UN in terms of humanitarian intervention? How to harmonize the UN’s conflicting responsibilities of upholding human rights and defending the principle of non-intervention? This research concludes that the new approach of the “responsibility to protect” that was created in recent years shows that a normative change is on the way. Besides, from Rwanda to Sudan, the UN has made progress in addressing grave humanitarian issues. However, all the efforts still have to depend on the political will of the member states of the UN. Since this issue is still more a political one than a legal one, in the years to come, the UN will still face the difficulty of fulfilling its responsibility.

No description available.

This thesis aims to critically assess the threemain approaches for the legal and political future of humanitarianintervention. It does so through the use of a normative and, to a lesser extent, a dogmatic methodology. The thesis thoroughly examines whether the relevant provisions of the UN Charter provide a satisfactory legal framework. Acknowledging the deficiencies of existing international law, the thesis brings underscrutiny the position that the law should be disregarded. Finding such a worldorder to be unacceptable, the thesis further sets off to explore potential legal and political reforms. The conclusion of the analysis is that a reform must consist of two elements in order to be both effective and legitimate. First, the codification of criteria under which humanitarian intervention is recognised as a legal right. Second, an institutional reform that mitigates the opportunities for states to pursue their political self-interests.

<p>The dissertation examines three military interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa which took place in the mid and late 1990s in Rwanda, the DRC and Lesotho. These interventions took place despite high expectations of international and regional peace on the part of most analysts after the collapse of cold war in 1989. However, interstate and intrastate conflicts re-emerged with more intensity than ever before, and sub-Saharan Africa proved to be no exception.</p> <p><br /> The study sets out to analyse the motives and/or causes of military interventions in Rwanda in 1990, the DRC in 1996-7, and the DRC military rebellion and the Lesotho intervention in 1998. In analysing these interventions, the study borrows extensively from the work of dominant security theorists of international relations, predominantly realists who conceptualise international relations as a struggle for power and survival in the anarchic world. The purpose of this analysis is fourfold / firstly, to determine the reasons for military interventions and the extent to which these interventions were conducted on humanitarian grounds / secondly, to investigate the degree to which or not intervening countries were spurred by their national interests / thirdly, to assess the roles of international organisations like Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations, in facilitating these interventions / as well as to evaluate the role of parliaments of intervening countries in authorising or not these military interventions in terms of holding their Executives accountable. In this context, the analysis argues that the intervening countries / Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Namibia, Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe appeared to have used intervention as a realist foreign policy tool in the absence of authorisation from the United Nations and its subordinate bodies such as the OAU and SADC.</p>

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Wien, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [334]-352).

Com o fim da Guerra-Fria uma série de conflitos surge em diferentes pontos do globo. Em sua maioria eles são de natureza intra-estatal, marcados por alto grau de violência e com múltiplos atores envolvidos. Acompanha essa nova realidade a adoção de uma postura coercitiva por parte da Organização das Nações Unidas, doravante comum nas chamadas intervenções humanitárias. A partir deste quadro propõe-se aqui analisar os fatores constitutivos desses conflitos, representados em dois estudos de casos emblemáticos do tema em foco, Somália (1992) e Timor Leste (1999), bem como o comportamento da ONU em face desses novos desafios. O fio condutor de toda a pesquisa consistiu em demonstrar sua principal hipótese: o sucesso dos processos de resolução de conflitos chefiados pela ONU foi comprovado somente em episódios nos quais a organização internacional considerou outros recursos além do uso da força militar e enfatizou abordagens mais abrangentes, as quais consideravam atores da sociedade civil originários de diversas camadas sociais. / The end of the Cold War is followed by many internal conflicts around the world. Most of these conflicts, are characterized by a high level of violence and composed by actors from different origins. This work is an analysis of coercive power in humanitarian interventions, ruled by the United Nations, concerning conflict resolution process and humanitarian interventions undertaken in East Timor (1999) and in Somalia (1992). The main goal is to discuss the reasons why United Nations used military force in humanitarian interventions, as well as to highlight the approach to conflict resolution processes developed by international organizations. This work argues that conflict resolution processes tend to be successful when they are based on a broader approach, which concerns actors form civil society, coming from different social origins.

Humanitarian interventions tend to be justified by claims to the existence of an obligation upon ‘us' (the benevolent saviours) to intervene militarily when a state is responsible for large-scale atrocity crimes against its own population. However, this justification is paradoxical, given that there is rarely held to exist a commensurate obligation to address structural violence (even when ‘we' may be partly responsible for, or complicit within, structures that are violent). The paradox arises because structural violence can be harmful – even evil – in its own right, and can also lead to – or exacerbate – direct violence. Hence, intervening militarily, and inevitably causing further harm in the act of intervening, results in a moral shortfall. This shortfall is indicative of a prevailing understanding of harm that is blind to the potential for structures to be violent. In responding to the paradox, I adopt a critical cosmopolitan perspective to argue that because structural violence can be harmful on a great scale, and because it is co-constitutive of direct violence, we ought not to countenance intervening with the use of military force (with what this brings in the form of inevitable intended and unintended harm) to stop direct violence without also considering and addressing violent structures, especially if they are violent structures that we are, ourselves, embedded within. Therefore, it is morally imperative to engage in an ongoing process of illumination and addressing of evil structures to rectify the harms they cause, alongside any efforts to stem direct violence, if any sort of intervention is to be legitimate and just. This requires us to a) expand our understanding of harm and evil at the global level, and b) engage in consistent and sustained deliberative processes that bring to the forefront structural violence and structural underpinnings of direct violence.