In the era of the Arab Spring, the people of Libya and Syria have fought for freedom and democracy. This essay aims to examine and analyze how The United Nations Security Council works to solve international problems in the world.   The main questions of my study are:   - How did the UN work on the basis of R2P in Libya and Syria?  - Why could the UN Security Council to agree on R2P in Libya but not in Syria?  Under the Arab Spring as the context, the purpose of this essay is to study the role of the United Nations UN in Syria and Libya. So, I highlight to the role of UN in R2P Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Syria. In 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, which established a no-fly zone over Libya. The UN’s actions in Libya succeeded to remove the dictator Muammar Al-Gaddafi by R2P's principle, while The UN failed to remove dictator Bashar AL-Assad in Syria. The purpose of the R2P in Libya was to establish a no-fly zone and safe areas to protect civilians, but this led to the overthrow of Al-Gaddafi's regime in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973.  I have used the theory of Realism and Liberalism to adapt them with my own theory to achieve the aim of my essay. In this paper, I used also content analysis as a guide of Method to reach conclusions. The materials used for this essay are documents, books and articles etc.  The results of my study are that the most important reason for Russia and China to use their veto in the UN Security Council is fear for the misuse of the international resolution to overthrow the regime in Syria. And thus, harm the very strong Chinese and Russian interests in Syria.

Vilja är avgörande för politiska beslut om väpnad insats och i Libyen efterfrågades på kort tid stridsflyg i en konflikt som fick ett starkt folkrättsligt mandat. Viljan till insats med stridsflyg, vilket inte använts internationellt sedan 1963, ställdes mot Sveriges tradition av att ställa upp när FN kallar. I uppsatsen analyseras viljan till insats i beslutsprocessen som föregick insatsen, stridsflygets förmåga och interaktionen däremellan. Uppsatsen har en kvalitativ ansats med förklarande ambition där intervjuer utgör en stor del av empirin. Den nationella beslutsprocessen har använts som teoretisk struktur för analysen. Sammanfattning: Resultatet visar att stridsflygets förmåga vid tillfället för beslutsprocessen var särskilt hög. Försvarsmakten uppvisade en stark vilja till insats genom hela beslutprocessen. Den politiska viljan var inledningsvis svag för en insats men växte sig stark inom delar av stridsflygets förmågebredd. Förmågan möjliggjorde tidiga och klara besked från Försvarsmakten vilka var avgörande för den politiska viljan. Tillgängligheten skapade en politisk press på att agera och bidrog till ett högt tempo som, med en stark gemensam vilja som grund, kunde förkorta tiden för beslutsprocessen. / Will is decisive for political decisions for armed intervention and in Libya fighters were on short notice requested in a conflict with a strong international legal mandate. The willingness to send fighters to an operation was challenged by the tradition to contribute when needed from UN.  The purpose is to study the capability and willingness, and the interaction between them, in the decision making process prior to the operation. The paper has a qualitative approach and interviews are a major part of the empirical data. The national decision-making process has been used as a theoretical framework in the research. Abstract: The results show that the capability at the time was high and that the willingness from the Armed Forces was strong throughout the whole decision process. The broad political will was initially weak but grew stronger during the process, but only for participation in a certain role in the operation. The capability enabled the early and clear signals from the Armed Forces that were crucial to the political will. The high availability also created pressure for political action and the high pace of decision making that, with a common will, shortened the process.

No description available.

Today there exists a legal norm that declares the existence of a global responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities. Previous doctrines of non-intervention and permissibility were inadequate and demonstrated the need for a new outlook. From a commission proposal to international acceptance the doctrine of a responsibility to protect (R2P) developed quickly and legitimately. Recent events, especially the events in Libya during the Arab Spring, highlight the conceptual evolution of the norm and, more importantly, an international acceptance of its binding quality. Therefore, it is apparent R2P has achieved the status of a legal norm of international law.

Today there exists a legal norm that declares the existence of a global responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities. Previous doctrines of non-intervention and permissibility were inadequate and demonstrated the need for a new outlook. From a commission proposal to international acceptance the doctrine of a responsibility to protect (R2P) developed quickly and legitimately. Recent events, especially the events in Libya during the Arab Spring, highlight the conceptual evolution of the norm and, more importantly, an international acceptance of its binding quality. Therefore, it is apparent R2P has achieved the status of a legal norm of international law.

Master thesis in Political Science by Alexander Gaber, 2015, ‘Evidence of the BenevolentState?- The Case of the R2P’ The study sets out to analyze the validity of the soldiarist prescriptive hypothesis that a shared understanding amongst the society of states can induce a circumstance where states will act selflessly by willingly subordinating their rights and sovereign prerogatives for the sake of individual rights. For this purpose the R2P legal doctrine is analyzed genealogically to generate an inference on if the dominant consensus within the society of states on the doctrine has generated this circumstance. The analysis concludes that the R2P doctrine has neither in customary - or codified international law enabled the individual’s right to protection to hold precedence over the right and sovereignty of the state. The case study, conclusively does not serve to validate the hypothesis, but neither does it invalidate it as the R2P constitutes a representative case. The intermarriage of the genealogical method with the English School framework is deemed fruitful and new insights into, specifically, the concept of sovereignty is generated which serves to evolve and reinforce the theoretical framework of English School Solidarism.

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

In January 2022, violent protests and clashes broke out in Kazakhstan and the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation decided to intervene. Although Russia tends to be a strong defender of Westphalian sovereignty and a frequent critic of interventions carried out by the West, this was not the first time Russia intervened in another country. During previous interventions has Russia legitimised its actions with arguments influenced by the conceptual framings ‘Responsibility to Protect’, ‘Eurasianism’, and ‘Russkiy Mir’, three concepts whichhave a central role within Russian foreign policy. The purpose with this thesis is to examine which of these three conceptual framings has been the most prominent in Russia’s discourse and legitimation of the intervention in Kazakhstan, January 2022. With an interpretivist approach, and a constructivist lens, is therefore a discourse analysis conducted to first investigate which arguments Russia has used to legitimise the intervention. Thereafter follows a discussion on which of the conceptual framings was the most prominent within the argumentation. The results show that ‘Eurasianism’ was the most prominent conceptual framing in Russia’s legitimation of the intervention, while ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and ‘Russkiy Mir’ was only prominent to a limited extent.

The English school of international relations claims that the national interests of states and their behaviour in international relations are not only driven by selfish motives, but the so- called enlightened self-interest as well. The functioning of the community of the states is governed by common rules, laws, values and interests. According to the Solidarist current of the English school it is even acceptable to limit the sovereignty of the state which seriously violates international standards such as the protection of human rights. A discrepancy between the protection of the states' sovereignty and the protection of the rights of individuals was bridged by the Responsibility to protect doctrine adopted at the UN World Summit in 2005. This doctrine has served France and other states intervening in Libya as a support of the legality of their cause. However, the doctrine does not address the conditions of the intervention solely. It also delegates a responsibility to rebuild the war-torn countries to the interventionists. Therefore, it is an appropriate tool for the evaluation of the interests and motivations that have shaped the policies and activities of France in Libya. The analysis suggests that the primary motivation of France has undergone a fundamental change during the course of...