[pt] A dissertação pretende discutir o posicionamento do Brasil em face das transformações da agenda de segurança internacional no pós- Guerra Fria. Para tanto, serão realizados três movimentos. O primeiro movimento se refere à análise do desenvolvimento das normas de segurança coletiva desde a Guerra Fria até a emergência do conceito de Responsabilidade de Proteger (R2P), com especial ênfase na década de noventa e nas transformações normativas que autorizaram as práticas de intervenção humanitária. O segundo movimento tem por objetivo discutir, através do discurso da diplomacia brasileira, o posicionamento do Brasil com relação ao tema da intervenção e de peacebuilding, principalmente no governo do presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995- 2002). O terceiro movimento busca salientar, a partir dos discursos da diplomacia brasileira, as estratégias do governo Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003- 2010) que permitiram a participação brasileira no comando da Missão de Estabilização das Nações Unidas para o Haiti (MINUSTAH), em 2004, e um maior engajamento com a R2P, inclusive com a proposta de responsabilidade ao proteger (RWP). / [en] This dissertation explores the position of Brazil in view of the major transformations in international security agenda in the post-Cold War era. For this, three movements take place. The first movement is related to the analysis of the development of norms of collective security since the Cold War until the emergence of the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), with special emphasis in the nineties and changes in norms that allowed the practice of humanitarian intervention. The second movement aims to discuss, through the discourse of Brazilian diplomacy, the position of Brazil on the issue of intervention and peacebuilding, especially under President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002). The third movement aims to stress, from the speeches of Brazilian diplomacy, the government strategies of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010) that allowed the participation of Brazil in charge of the Mission of the United Nations Stabilization for Haiti (MINUSTAH), in 2004, and a greater engagement with R2P, including the proposal of responsibility while protecting (RWP).

No description available.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine interventions under the doctrine of R2P without appropriate legal authority becomes coercive actions of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention. And that a unilateral humanitarian intervention would amount to the crime of aggression.   The R2P doctrine states that sovereignty is derived from the responsibility for a population. The responsibility to protect is primarily on the state. In the event of a failure to protect a human population the responsibility is transferred to the international community of states.According to the doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions it exists a third exception to the use of force, which allows states to legally intervene in the event of a humanitarian catastrophe.  This thesis will first examine the link between R2P and Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention. Secondly, the legal status of Unilateral Humanitarian interventions will be examined, and how Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention can fulfil the elements of the crime of aggression. The last part examines if Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention can constitute ‘defensive force of others’ as grounds to exclude criminal responsibility, in the event of an ICC criminal trial for the crime of aggression.The thesis concludes that a person subject to a criminal prosecution for the crime of aggression in the event of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention, could successfully argue ‘defensive force of others’ as grounds to exclude criminal responsibility.

! The scope of this work is to critically assess the phenomenon of American interventions from the beginning of the post-Cold War era to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Departing from the analysis of the question of why an argument liable to disproof was chosen for legitimizing on legal grounds the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I proceed to the analysis of the relation between legitimizing discourse employed by the American administration domestically, and the one employed in the context of international institutions. The first one is concluded to take precedence over the second - at least for what concerns the timeframe taken into consideration in this work. I then proceed to an analysis of the evolution of domestic legitimizing discourse from 1991 to 2003, providing a dialectic evolutionary model. Finally, competing theoretical interpretations of the phenomenon are tested against the findings of the research.

This thesis explores the relationship between regime types and international humanitarian nongovernmental organizations. Investigating 12 African regimes, varying between the governing types of autocratic and democratic over the last 50 years, and three specific humanitarian INGOs, I search to see if there is one regime type that works the best with this type of INGO. Using INGO presence, amount of funding, and amount of volunteers from each INGO in each country, I measure the presence of INGOs in democracies and autocracies. Compiling both an aggregate view of all 12 countries, and a disaggregate view of 4 individual countries, with investigative case studies, I discover that democracies are not the regime type that works the best with these INGOs. Contrary to the assumption made by most, that democracies do work best with humanitarian INGOs and should have the greatest INGO presence, I find this not to be the case. Rather, by grouping these regimes cohesively into four categories (autocracy, democracy, interruption, and transition), I find that democracy has the least amount of INGO presence, and very low numbers regarding the amount of funding and number of volunteers. Autocracies, interruption, and transition countries have greater INGO presence. In addition, as this question evolved over the course of writing it, other questions had to be asked and other variables considered. Issues of access, demands and needs of a country, and the domestic political environment all had to be enveloped into this question.

No description available.

Humanitarian intervention has long been a secondary or tertiary concern in a security driven international system. Since NATO's intervention during the Kosovo crisis in 1999 there have been significant developments in both the language and form of humanitarian intervention as a matter of international law. The events in Kosovo sparked debate about how to handle humanitarian crisis in the future and thus humanitarian intervention evolved into a redefinition of sovereignty as responsibility and the Responsibility to Protect. The Responsibility to Protect has had a number of opportunities to continue to evolve and assert itself in an international legal context throughout the ensuing years since the Kosovo intervention. The purpose of this research is to explore the moral, legal and practical implications of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Classical and contemporary theories of international relations and moral philosophy are applied in the context of the Responsibility to Protect and its effect upon the international system and specific states to cultivate a sense of the development of the norm and different actors' attitudes towards it. A literature review is conducted to show the practical and conceptual issues inherent in the framework of the Responsibility to Protect. The norm is then applied to the cases of Kosovo, Libya, and Syria to assess its effect in practice and determine its origins. The analysis of these case studies leads to a number of conclusions regarding its effectiveness and future application. The case studies chosen for this research are Kosovo, Libya, and Syria. The case of Kosovo helps to establish a humanitarian intervention framework, the need for redefinition, and the beginning of the Responsibility to Protect. Libya shows the first strong case for the positive application of the Responsibility to Protect in a practical sense. The non-intervention in Syria shows the difficult political issues involved in intervention and presents uncertainty as to the positive develop of the norm. These cases clearly show the myriad of practical challenges to RtoP that are borne out the theoretical, moral issues embedded in its philosophy. The conclusion drawn from the literature review and subsequent case studies is that the current efforts to assert the Responsibility to Protect are aimed at the wrong areas of international law and states, and that the norm is not developing positively in a linear pattern. To successfully promote its acceptance the Responsibility to Protect must build institutional linkages to make intervention more cost effective, exercise the regional options available to promote and ensure the legitimacy of intervention, and assure the acceptance of RtoP by the major powers in the Security Council.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University,2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study exammes, m stages of development, the existing law regarding humanitarian intervention, problems in respect of this law and cases of intervention. More specifically, intervention in human rights abuses not breaching international peace and security but rather posing a so-called threat to peace is examined. This information is used to consider whether more adequate provision can be made regarding circumstances of intervention to stop situations of grave human rights abuses sooner. From the law regarding humanitarian intervention, it is evident that the institution of intervention is illegal under the present UN legal system. Yet, in a time when the human rights culture has become so important that it forms part of the basis of international law, effective intervention is not being authorised by the Security Council. As a result, other actors have been intervening in cases of grave human rights abuses. These interventions need to be appropriate and well managed. Since the protection of human rights is as valid in non-democracies, as in any democratic state form, the study finds that human rights will benefit from dependence on legitimate authority. Attributing more importance to the Uniting for Peace Resolution could expand the role of the General Assembly. Humanitarian intervention also needs to be coupled with a commitment to address the causes of human rights abuses through conflict resolution and social reconstruction. The study concludes with some criteria/guidelines for the establishment of the legitimacy of intervention. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie studie is - binne 'n raamwerk van ontwikkelingstydperke - 'n ondersoek na die bestaande reg aangaande humanitêre ingryping, probleme tenopsigte daarvan en gevalle van ingryping. Veral ingrypings in menseregte-skendings wat nie internasionale vrede en sekuriteit skend nie, maar eerder 'n sogenaamde bedreiging vir vrede is, word ondersoek. Die inligting wat so bekom is, word gebruik om te oordeel of meer gepaste voorsiening gemaak kan word waarvolgens situasies van growwe menseregte-skendings deur ingryping gouer beëindig kan word. Die reg aangaande humanitêre ingryping toon dat ingryping onwettig is in die bestaande regsisteem van die Verenigde Nasies. In 'n tyd waarin menseregte so belangrik geword het dat dit ten grondslag lê van internasionale reg, word effektiewe ingrypings nogtans nie gemagtig deur die Veiligheidsraad nie. Gevolglik gryp ander partye in om teen situasies van growwe menseregte-skendings op te tree. Hierdie ingrypings moet daarom gepas wees en goed bestuur word. Aangesien die beskerming van menseregte net so geldig is in ander staatsvorms as in demokrasieë, bevind die studie dat menseregte sal baat daarby indien dit afhanklik is van legitieme gesag. Voorts kan die rol van die Algemene Vergadering aangaande die beskerming van menseregte uitgebrei word deur groter waarde te heg aan die "Uniting for Peace"-resolusie. Dit is verder nodig dat humanitêre ingryping gekoppel word aan 'n verbintenis om die oorsake van menseregteskendings aan te pak deur konflik-resolusie en sosiale heropbou. Ter afsluiting word riglyne neergelê om te help met die bepaling van die legitimiteit van . . mgrypmg.

This research makes use of a Constructivist approach to norm development, in particular the concept of the norm life cycle, to assess the emergence and development of the responsibility to protect as a norm in international society in relation to the conduct of interventions on humanitarian grounds. This study finds that the responsibility to protect emerged relatively rapidly in international society as a norm relevant to the formulation and implementation of international responses to conflict situations characterised by the commission of atrocity crimes. Indeed, between 2001 and 2010, this study finds that the responsibility to protect norm became codified and entrenched in international organisation, and could therefore have been expected to influence state behaviour, and the discourse surrounding that behaviour, in relation to the conduct of interventions on humanitarian grounds. However, through an assessment of the application of the norm through the United Nations and the African Union to the conflicts in the Darfur region of Sudan from 2003 onwards, the study finds that the norm, while featuring relatively prominently in discourse surrounding Darfur between 2007 and 2008 in the United Nations, appears to have receded thereafter, disappearing from discourse by 2009 altogether, and appears not to have been useful to the attainment of its content goal, namely preventing or halting the commission of atrocity crimes, in the case of Darfur. Indeed, the norm may even have contributed to complicating, as opposed to facilitating, international engagement on Darfur. This study explores the apparent contradiction between the emergence and entrenchment of the responsibility to protect norm in international society at the same time as the norm appears to have increasingly faded from discourse surrounding international responses to the conflicts in Darfur, and assesses the implications of this both for the future development and utility of the norm, as well as for future responses to conflicts characterised by atrocity crimes on the African continent.

This thesis develops a potential strategy for carrying out humanitarian intervention in Syria using the legal justification and policy framework of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.