This essay is a type of case study, it examines if intervention in Kosovo were in accordance with humanitarian intervention criteria. This study gives an understanding that intervention may sometime worsen condition for the people it wants to rescue, and that inability to address humanitarian intervention prevails in diffuse victory. The purpose of this essay is to examine the Kosovo conflict and the approach of humanitarian intervention in 24 March, 1999.  The approach made by NATO was seen as a new international phenomenon that sought to protect values of human rights. The results of this study pose doubt to this notion; it reflects that the intervention rested not only on humanitarian grounds. The most important aspect of humanitarian intervention is promoting security for the people it wants to rescue. The results shows that NATO’s intervention in short term failed to provide security; it is shown that the air campaign had little impact at the beginning prevailing only after much damage and suffering has been done. The result also shows that failure to adopt the issue of Kosovo more adequately at an earlier stage on the international agenda resulted in the ''welfare'' of NATO's intervention. Despite the consequences of NATO’s action, situation prevailed for the better outcome for the Kosovar-Albanian people than what might have been has intervention been absent. FRY: s deliberative plan of expelling the Kosovo-Albanian to the last one would have been finalized if intervention would have been absent.

This Note asserts that natural disaster-affected populations have a right to call on the international community to protect basic subsistence interests where their sovereign government is unable or unwilling to do so in the wake of a catastrophic natural disaster. First, this Note situates the right to international humanitarian assistance following a natural disaster as a legitimate right under modern international human rights law, using the normative framework set out by renowned political theorist Charles Beitz. This Note then illustrates how the international humanitarian law doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect provides a clear and coherent way to operationalize the right to post-natural disaster humanitarian assistance, by providing a previously-determined structure for a definitive, yet circumstantially-flexible, determination of first- and second-level responsibilities for eligible international actors to take action in defence of this right.

This Note asserts that natural disaster-affected populations have a right to call on the international community to protect basic subsistence interests where their sovereign government is unable or unwilling to do so in the wake of a catastrophic natural disaster. First, this Note situates the right to international humanitarian assistance following a natural disaster as a legitimate right under modern international human rights law, using the normative framework set out by renowned political theorist Charles Beitz. This Note then illustrates how the international humanitarian law doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect provides a clear and coherent way to operationalize the right to post-natural disaster humanitarian assistance, by providing a previously-determined structure for a definitive, yet circumstantially-flexible, determination of first- and second-level responsibilities for eligible international actors to take action in defence of this right.

The aim of this work is to determine whether the concept of Responsibility to Protect is able to explain why in case of the Syrian civil conflict the international community did not intervene in a similar manner as it did in Libya. Primarily, the theoretical framework is defined using the concept of Responsibility to Protect. In order to answer the research question, all criteria applied in the analysis were operationalized in accordance with the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and the Outcome Document from 2005. At the same time, concept of state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention is designed. Although the conflicts in Libya and Syria started simultaneously in 2011 during the rule of authoritarian regimes, the intrastate situations were not identical. Based on the analysis of two case studies, I came to the conclusion that the concept of Responsibility to Protect is able to sufficiently explain the different reaction of the international community, which confirmed my hypothesis. Specifically, it is the principle of right authority, which was not fulfilled in Syria, while it is necessary to note the criterion of reasonable prospect becomes with the gradual development of the conflict more and more problematic. In contrast, the intervention in...

No description available.

Thesis advisor: Donald Hafner / Thesis advisor: Timothy Crawford / This Scholar of the College senior honors thesis moves beyond moral pronouncements and the vague excuse of international "lack of will" for genocide intervention to introduce an inductive typology identifying practical, specific factors responsible for the world's repeated unwillingness to intervene during genocide under the obligations of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Drawing on original, classified documents contained in the UN Office at Geneva, the thesis proposes methods of mitigating the influence of these factors and evaluates the degree to which the Responsibility to Protect, a new humanitarian intervention norm, attenuates or exacerbates the causes of non-intervention. The project was awarded the John McCarthy S.J. Award for the most distinguished Scholar of the College senior thesis in the Social Sciences at Boston College. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Political Science Honors Program. / Discipline: Political Science.

The thesis focuses on, and tries to evaluate, the role that the African Union (AU) plays in protecting the peace and security on the African continent. The thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach to the topic by both utilizing international relations and international law theories. The two disciplines are combined in an attempt to understand the evolution of the AU’s commitment to the pragmatist doctrine: responsibility to protect (R2P). The AU charter is considered to be the first international law document to cover R2P as it allows the AU to interfere in the internal affairs of its member states. The R2P doctrine was evolved around the notion of a need to arrive at a consensus in regard to the right to intervene in the face of humanitarian emergencies. A part of the post-Cold War shift in UN behaviour has been to support local solutions to local problems. Hereby the UN acts in collaboration with regional organizations, such as the AU, to achieve the shared aspirations to maintain international peace and security without getting directly involved on the ground. The R2P takes a more holistic and long-term approach to interventions by including an awareness of the need to address the root causes of the crisis in order to prevent future resurrections of conflicts. The doctrine also acknowledges the responsibility of the international community and the intervening parties to actively participate in the rebuilding of the post-conflict state. This requires sustained and well planned support to ensure the development of a stable society.While the AU is committed to implementing R2P, many of the AU’s members are struggling, both ideologically and practically, to uphold the foundations on which legitimate intervention rests, such as the protection of human rights and good governance. The fact that many members are also among the poorest countries in the world adds to the challenges facing the AU. A lack of human and material resources leads to a situation where few countries are willing, or able, to support a long-term commitment to humanitarian interventions. Bad planning and unclear mandates also limit the effectiveness of the interventions. This leaves the AU strongly dependent on regional powerbrokers such as Nigeria and South Africa, which in itself creates new problems in regard to the motivations behind interventions. The current AU charter does not provide sufficient checks and balances to ensure that national interests are not furthered through humanitarian interventions. The lack of resources within the AU also generates worries over what pressure foreign nations and other international actors apply through donor funding. It is impossible for the principle of “local solutions for local problems? to gain ground while this donor conditionality exists.The future of the AU peace and security regime is not established since it still is a work in progress. The direction that these developments will take depends on a wide verity of factors, many of which are beyond the immediate control of the AU.

For nearly half a decade discussion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and international criminal justice proceeded along separate lines. However, in recent years an emerging perception that international criminal law may contribute to putting an end to a continuing atrocity crimes has lead to its use as an R2P reactive tool. This paper examines the relationship between R2P and the activity of International Criminal Court (the ICC), and the implications of their recent rapprochement. Firstly, the paper aims to bring a much-needed focus on the implications of their current interaction in ongoing conflict situations. Secondly it examines whether the convergence of R2P and the ICC represents a paradigmatic shift toward humanity’s law and a possible utopian tyranny or reinforces the traditional statist system as the fundamental framework for conflict mediation opening the door to a possible “cynic tyranny”. Thirdly, it considers how ICC and R2P activities should be coordinated.

For nearly half a decade discussion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and international criminal justice proceeded along separate lines. However, in recent years an emerging perception that international criminal law may contribute to putting an end to a continuing atrocity crimes has lead to its use as an R2P reactive tool. This paper examines the relationship between R2P and the activity of International Criminal Court (the ICC), and the implications of their recent rapprochement. Firstly, the paper aims to bring a much-needed focus on the implications of their current interaction in ongoing conflict situations. Secondly it examines whether the convergence of R2P and the ICC represents a paradigmatic shift toward humanity’s law and a possible utopian tyranny or reinforces the traditional statist system as the fundamental framework for conflict mediation opening the door to a possible “cynic tyranny”. Thirdly, it considers how ICC and R2P activities should be coordinated.

The debate regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the protection of the hu-man rights was at its peak during the 1990’s. Never again the world wanted to witness the atrocities committed in Rwanda, but at the same time some states argued in favor of a strict interpretation of the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention. In 2001, ICISS was created – a commission with the aim to find consensus in the question of how the world should respond to mass atrocities committed by a state against their own people. Their work resulted in a report which presented a new view to the state sovereignty: “the responsibility to protect” (R2P). The purpose of this essay is to study the development and appliance of the concept since 2001. According to ICISS, every state has a responsibility to protect its citizens against mass atrocities. If the state is unwilling, or incapable to live up to this responsibility, the international community has the secondary responsibility to protect the people in that state. At the time of ICISS:s report, R2P had a limited legal value and could only be consid-ered as a soft law-principle consisting of arguments de lege ferenda. During the World Sum-mit in 2005, the principle evolved into an international normative concept consisting of the state’s opinio iuris, as R2P was implemented in two paragraphs in the Outcome Document. The definition of the concept now became narrower than the original principle, since R2P only applied to genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The ap-pliance of R2P has been fairly inconsequent in practice. Although usus has not been reached in the area, R2P is now an established concept, and the debate has led from if the international community should act, to how it should act. In the future, regional organizations will probably play an extended role in the work for international peace. Interventions without the Security Council’s mandate is not a desirable outcome, but nevertheless a possibility if the Council doesn’t become more effective when facing mass atrocities and humanitarian disasters.