Sedan andra världskrigets slut har internationell debatt förekommit angående hur internationellt bemötande bör ske då en främmande befolkning utsätts för våld och övergrepp av dess egen statsledning. Ofta har inom ramen för denna debatt normen om icke-intervention kommit att ställas mot ett globalt förespråkande av mänskliga rättigheter.Efter uppmaning av FN:s tidigare Generalsekreterare Kofi Annan, upprättades år 2000 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Kommissionens arbete mynnade ut i en rapport benämnd The Responsibility to Protect, vilken syftar till att söka internationell konsensus kring möjligheten att genomföra intervention med humanitärt skydd som mål, samt rekommendationer om hur en sådan bör ske.Syftet med uppsatsen är att genom kvalitativ textanalys söka svar på i vilken omfattning rekommendationerna inom The Responsibility to Protect överensstämmer med internationellt agerande under den inomstatliga konflikten i Libyen 2011.Studiens resultat visar på att internationellt agerande från FN, dess medlemsländer samt internationella organisationer till viss del överensstämmer med rapportens förespråkade konflikthantering innan demonstrationer utbröt i Libyen. Vidare visar studien att internationellt agerande väl överensstämmer med The Responsibility to Protect´s rekommendationer, då de libyska demonstrationerna eskalerade och mynnade ut i en inomstatlig väpnad konflikt. / Since the end of the Second World War there has been an international debate on how to address conflictsituations, where foreign populations are victims of abuse by actions perpetrated by their own government. Thetraditional norm of non-intervention has been confronted with growing support of global perspectives of humanrights.After several pleas from the UN Secretary-General to form international consensus on interventions for humanprotection purposes, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was formed in 2000.The commission’s work led to a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The report refers to a broadspectrum of recommendations on when and how intervention for human protection purposes should beauthorized and carried out.This study aims, through a qualitative text analysis, to find the extent to which international actions towardsLibya during 2011, complies with guidelines given within The Responsibility to Protect.The result shows partial conformable actions from international actors in an initial phase, and after Libyaprotests escaladed in early 2011, the study indicates that international measures and actions seems to reflect amajor part of recommendations given within the scope of The Responsibility to Protect.

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.

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-19T13:40:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4279418 bytes, checksum: 9eeb4c3b3022516f237f7a2d02939cd3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-07-22 / The wars fought for humanitarian purposes carry itself a controversial aspect because they represent, during its course, the expense of their own human rights. Around that contrast, intense discussions gain prominence about the justifications given for the promotion of armed interventions, aimed at protection of human rights, against sovereign states which become genocides stage and ethnic cleansing campaigns against their populations, almost by default of internal control mechanisms. Indeed, humanitarian activism that took shape in the 1990s brought to light new settings to the traditional model of intervention, especially in relation to the perception of peace enforcement in light of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. From the indifference of world leaders with the civil war in Somalia to the aerial bombardment of the Western powers against the genocide in Kosovo – operation this, it is worth mentioning, articulated without authorization of the UN Security Council – emerges the following question: are there reasons really admitted political, moral and legally legitimizing a duty intrusion of the international community in the domestic affairs of States, to put an end to systematic humanitarian crises? This is actually a contentious issue involving points still no consensus that unsettle the opinions of internationalists, such as the universality of human rights, the need to resize the sovereignty and effectiveness of prohibitory rule of war. Taking into account the relevance of these topics, this paper aims, bibliographically, expose and analyze some of the main reasons attributed to such bellicose interventions, highlighting its political, moral and legal aspects (capitulated in that order). From the research of the most commonly alleged justifications for intervenors up to the present day, it is intended to better contribute to the formation of a critical sense about the claim of just causes of war in the future. / As guerras travadas com fins humanitários carregam em si um aspecto controverso por representarem, durante seu transcurso, o dispêndio dos próprios direitos humanos. Em torno desse contraste, ganham relevo intensas discussões a respeito das justificativas dadas à promoção de intervenções armadas, dirigidas à proteção dos direitos humanos, contra Estados soberanos que se tornam palco de genocídios e campanhas de limpeza étnica contra suas populações, praticamente à revelia dos mecanismos internos de controle. Com efeito, o ativismo humanitário que ganhou forma na década de 1990 trouxe à tona novas configurações ao tradicional modelo de intervenção, principalmente no que se refere à percepção do peace enforcement à luz da doutrina Responsibility to Protect. Do descaso dos líderes mundiais com a guerra civil na Somália ao bombardeio aéreo das potências ocidentais contra os genocidas no Kosovo – operação esta, ressalte-se, articulada sem autorização do Conselho de Segurança da ONU – emerge a seguinte indagação: realmente existem razões admitidas política, moral e juridicamente que legitimam um dever de intrusão da comunidade internacional nos assuntos domésticos dos Estados, visando pôr termo a crises humanitárias sistemáticas? Esta é, na verdade, uma questão polêmica que envolve pontos ainda sem consenso que inquietam as opiniões dos internacionalistas, como a universalidade dos direitos humanos, a necessidade de redimensionamento da soberania e a eficácia da norma proibitiva de guerra. Levando em conta a relevância desses tópicos, o presente trabalho visa, bibliograficamente, expor e analisar algumas das principais justificativas atribuídas a tais intervenções bélicas, ressaltando os seus aspectos políticos, morais e jurídicos (capitulados nesta ordem). A partir da investigação das justificativas mais comumente alegadas pelos interventores até os dias atuais, pretende-se melhor contribuir à formação de um senso crítico sobre a alegação de justas causas das guerras no futuro.

Many scholars perceive state sovereignty as absolute, inviolable, indivisible, final, binding and stagnant. That perception emanates from inter alia political, social, cultural and environmental contexts of the modern era. Most literature converge that the doctrine of sovereignty first received official codification at the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporary international norms, particularly the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, are arguably an environment and culture of current global politics. With human rights and democracy having taken centre-stage in contemporary political discourses, sovereignty is affected and influenced by such developments in international politics. Hence the argument that globalisation, among others, has eroded, weakened and rendered the doctrine of sovereignty obsolete. This study, using Zimbabwe‟s Operation Murambatsvina as a case study, demonstrates that sovereignty is neither unitary in practice, nor sacrosanct; it is dynamic and evolves, thus, in need of constant reconfiguration. To this end, the study uses the qualitative research methodology. / Political Sciences

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.

This dissertation examines the history of humanitarianism in international relations by tracing the relationship between moral obligation and sovereignty from the 16th century to the present. Its main argument is that moral obligations and sovereignty are mutually constitutive, in contrast to a widely held assumption in international relations scholarship that they are opposed to each other. The dissertation’s main theoretical contribution is to develop a framework, using a genealogical method of inquiry, for understanding the relationship between sovereignty and the shifting boundaries of moral obligation during the Westphalian period. This approach makes it possible to identify both elements of continuity and change in the history of humanitarianism and practices of sovereignty. The first chapter demonstrates how the extant literature on sovereignty and humanitarianism fails to adequately account for how states have participated in the construction of new moral boundaries even as they have sought to assert their own sovereignty. Chapter two lays out the dissertation’s theoretical framework, first by outlining an identity-based understanding of sovereignty in relationship to moral obligation, and then discussing the genealogical method that is used in three case studies. The following three chapters contain the dissertation’s empirical contributions, which are three historical cases that represent pivotal moments in the history of moral obligation and sovereignty. Chapter three examines the assistance offered by Elizabeth I to Huguenot refugees from 1558-1603, and relates England’s moral obligations towards Huguenots to the emergence of a sovereign English confessional state. Chapter four examines the relationship between British abolitionist arguments against slavery in the 19th century, and justifications for the extension of empire. Chapter five examines the emergence and evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine since 2001, whose advocates posit a modified conception of sovereignty that is explicitly tied to moral obligation. The concluding chapter discusses how the dissertation accounts for both the rise of humanitarianism and the persistence of sovereignty in international relations, as well as provides some reflections on areas for future research.

No description available.

The thesis focuses on the responsibility to protect as a new concept of the international law designed to help the members of the international community in dealing with humanitarian crisis. Although it is quite new, it has undertaken dynamic evolution and changed its nature to a certain extent. The main aim of responsibility to protect is to ensure that when massive violations of human rights occur, the effective and proportionate response will come and will stop the violations and prevent them from appearing again in the future. First, the debate about state sovereignty and human rights protection was presented and the relevant fields of research were defined. This was followed by the examination of the humanitarian intervention as this concept focuses on issues that are common also to the concept of the responsibility to protect. However, whereas the issues are in common, the perspective is different. While the humanitarian intervention focuses mainly on states, the responsibility to protect focuses on populations striving from human rights violations. While humanitarian intervention deals with the reaction on humanitarian crisis, the responsibility to protect deals mainly with the prevention of the crisis. While the humanitarian intervention places the sovereignty and human rights protection...

This dissertation examines the problems associated with the restrictive interpretation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as UN Charter) to the threat or use of force. This restrictive approach appears no longer helpful in furthering the maintenance of international peace and security. Equally, it does not adequately protect the entire territory of States for the following two reasons. Firstly, the UN member States shelter in the first limb of Article 2(4) to engage in conducts that violate the territory of other States while claiming subservience to the provision of Article 2(4). This occurs through mere frontier incidents, covert and overt support of the activities of the non-State actors. However, the State practice shows that such conducts are always resisted by the victim State no matter how insignificant the breach might be. Secondly, the UN member States have asserted their jurisdiction in cyberspace by adopting appropriate legislation to regulate the cyberspace activities and to curb cybercrimes. To legislate is an exercise of the sovereign power which is by nature, territorial. Thus, it is difficult to equate the non-kinetic character of the cyberspace activities to physical armed attack if Article 2(4) were narrowly construed. Because of these developments, this dissertation advocates for a broad interpretation of Article 2(4), which is respect for the inviolability of State territory. The fact that State practice is repugnant to mere frontier incidents indicates that the restrictive approach is unacceptable. Moreover, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of a State supports a broad approach. This dissertation adds to the scholarly debate as to whether Article 2(4) applies in cyberspace. It answers in the affirmative if the international community accepts the broad interpretation it proposes. Otherwise, the answer would be negative given the non-kinetic nature of the cyberspace activities.

This thesis considers how the international response to egregious crimes can be made more consistent and effective. It focuses in particular on the Security Council as the authorising mechanism for intervention and comprehensively evaluates the proposals for its reform. It shows that contrary to several existing proposals, reform to the Security Council would not improve its authorisation of international action to address atrocity crimes. Similarly, the thesis considers proposals that seek to circumvent the authority of the Security Council but rejects their capacity to bring about a more consistent humanitarian regime. Finally, it robustly considers and argues for the use of regional organisations as alternative authorising mechanisms during mass atrocities.