This study explores the extent and depth of moral obligations in international relations, and how our collective understanding of these obligations has changed in the post-Cold War era. The genocides in Rwanda (1994) and Srebrenica (1995) raised questions about the moral legitimacy of states ravaged by human rights violations, and about the responsibility of outside states to protect innocent civilians from being massacred across political and cultural boundaries. In this context, the concept of humanitarian intervention as an expression of international moral responsibility emerged as one of the most controversial foreign policy issues of our time. The formal and unanimous adoption of the doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect (ICISS, 2001) by the United Nations General Assembly (2005), and the subsequent ratification by the U.N. Security Council, reiterated our collective responsibility when faced with situations of grave human rights violations. Nevertheless, the international community repeatedly fails to respond adequately to atrocities. By comparing the nature of, and moral justifications for, the U.S. response to the atrocities in Rwanda (1994), Darfur (2003-2007), and Libya (2011), this study reveals that, despite inconsistencies in policy, the solidarist values reflected in Responsibility to Protect are evolving along Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) “norm life cycle.” Yet, it also cautions against the reliance on the “humanitarian impulses” of world leaders in internalizing this expanded notion of moral responsibility in international relations. Beyond the transitory nature of political will, this dependence fails to address the underlying assumptions generating inconsistencies in international moral decision-making. This study suggests that in order to ameliorate the problem of inconsistent responses to situations of mass atrocities, deeper issues related to realist assumptions upon which the international system is based may be involved, demanding attention and reassessment.

Thesis (doctoral)--Lapin yliopisto, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 340-369).

Thesis (LLB Honours) -- Australian National University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p.44-55) ALSO available in ELECTRONIC FORMAT via SSRN.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 104-109). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2005. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 186-192).

Beyond being an international question of the status of the Ottoman Empire, it was The Eastern Question that determined the course of diplomacy towards the Ottoman Empire throughout the nineteenth century. Lord Palmerston’s policy of preserving Ottoman territorial integrity (with domestic reforms), and guarding Ottoman independence against the Russian threat provided a close relationship with the Ottoman Empire based on mutual trust and friendship. Gladstone’s keen interest in the condition of Christian subjects of the Porte permeated every aspect of his long life. In arguing for Gladstone’s consistent attitude towards the Ottoman Empire on behalf of Christian subjects of the Porte since his early life, this thesis emphasizes the need to re-examine the degree of Gladstone’s passionate involvement in Eastern affairs which contributed significantly to the dynamics of British foreign policy. It argues that the political, humanitarian and ideological role that Gladstone played was far greater throughout his life than has previously been acknowledged. Given the inflammatory rhetoric that he employed in ‘Bulgarian Horrors’ pamphlet, the reasons for Gladstone’s indignation over Turkish administration as well as his attitude towards Islam demands attention. However, there is a clear distinction between Ottoman centric and Europe-centric historiography as to Gladstone’s engagement with Ottoman affairs. Yet, very few studies have analysed Gladstone’s central role in shaping of British policymaking towards the Porte. By placing Gladstone’s attitudes towards the Ottoman Empire at the core of the research, this study seeks to reassess the impact of Gladstone’s background and the key events for his concern with the civil rights and religious liberty of the Christian minorities of the Porte. It further explores whether Gladstone altered the historic British policy of maintaining Ottoman territorial integrity. An analysis is made, therefore, of Gladstone’s humanitarian perspectives and the ‘Concert of Europe’ approach by examining what he said and did in respect to Anglo-Ottoman relations throughout his long life.

The Kosovo conflict has for a long time been the subject of debate, research and controversy. NATO's and US's role in the conflict has been seen differently from different perspectives. Serbia opposes the US and NATO`s involvement by claiming the right to the principle of non-intervention and accusing them of occupying an independent country. The United States and NATO claim that the Belgrade regime has lost the right to rule Kosovars because of the treatment they were subjected to. The United States and NATO claim that the war was about humanitarian intervention, aimed at saving Kosovo`s people from ethnic cleansing. This case study aims to find out the main causes of military intervention and understand how two of the classical theories, Liberalism and Realism can explain NATO`s role, in particular the United States main reason for intervention. This study shows that Nato and USA interfered in the conflict for two main reasons, firstly because of humanitarian reasons and to save Kosovo`s people and secondly to prevent that the conflict would spread to other balkan countries.

The rise of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOS) in the post-Cold War era in Africa exerted pressure on conflict resolution mechanisms as governments responded to perceived and real pressure from external, mainly Western countries. INGOs are well resourced and conduct ‘humanitarian’ and other work funded by donors. The issue of funding is critical to control and legitimacy. It is also tied to achievement of intended goals. The study explores the relationships and in some cases conflict between Western NGOs in Zimbabwe and the government during the period when the latter was experiencing diplomatic estrangement with Western countries. The qualitative study seeks to establish whether INGO operations were influenced by political relations. The researcher interviewed twenty experts in NGO and governmental operations using an interview guide. Data was collected and entered into Nvivo software where it was thematically analysed. The major findings of the study are that the political strand is the main relational context that determined the relationship between the government and INGOs. INGOs were viewed as active conflict drivers mostly due to the bias towards certain political parties and being conduits of Western initiatives. Local conflict resolution mechanisms were also established to be inadequate. The study recommends that the government of Zimbabwe needs to work on maladministration and resolve differences with Western countries. Local NGOs and INGOs should not meddle in politics in order to have a trustworthy relationship with government while donor funds are more appreciated when channelled through governments.

Strategic communication planning and its requirements have evolved considerably over the past 20 years as a reflection of the needs of our changing world; people, technology and the requirement for military and civilian actors to work together. Nowhere has this change been more pronounced than with the development of international humanitarian intervention missions that necessarily involve military and international aid actors working in mutual dependence in areas of natural and man-made crises. Using the 2007-2011 period of the combined war and humanitarian intervention mission in Afghanistan, this study develops the requirements for a strategic communication plan for the humanitarian aspects of that mission with implications for practical reach to all long-term crises. It establishes the real from the ideal practices by the international community (military, humanitarian aid, international bodies) and, based on recommendations from the expert literature, presents a strategic communication planning format that guides both the practitioner and theoretician.

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this mini-thesis is to examine the inconsistency in the implementation of the responsibility to protect (RTP) principle during armed conflicts with specific focus on the case of Libya and Darfur. Furthermore the mini-thesis scrutinizes the criteria which are utilized universally and questions whether the principle is determined by factors such as economics, politics and location depending on each crisis. The significance of this minithesis derives from the need to make a contribution to the new interventionism debate and contribute to the growing literature on the doctrine of the RTP especially when it comes to the inconsistencies during its application which seems to be on the rise especially in the African continent. The mini-thesis was guided by the following assumption that there are inconsistencies when it comes to the application of the RTP under humanitarian law. The mini-thesis also embarks on an enquiry into the legal aspects of the RTP doctrine and the legal status of humanitarian intervention. It is worth noting that the RTP doctrine does not concentrate on every human rights violation or abuse of power, even when these are very serious as in the case of Sudan. It certainly does not empower or establish an obligation on the international community to respond by over-riding the offending state’s sovereignty. The initial intention of the RTP was aimed at preventing mass attacks or large scale violations involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It is greatly disappointing to note that the international community at large tends to overlook the more severe crises which have more casualties and turn their eyes on less serious humanitarian crises. This raises concern about the extent of the inconsistency in the application of the RTP. The question that begs an answer therefore is why intervene in Libya and not Darfur? In conclusion to this mini-thesis I came to the realization that inconsistencies within the application of the RTP exist because humanitarian intervention under the RTP has a massive political element which affects implementation. The RTP is often used as a justification for states to act in conflicts when there is no domestic support for more direct political intervention. Thus, I believe that intervention can never be completely humanitarian driven until the five RTP precautionary principles are used as a guideline or criteria for interventions.