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.

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.

The object of this thesis is to consider the relationship between sovereignty and responsibility and to examine how this relationship has developed over time. There is a conventional story told by many scholars of International Relations which holds that sovereignty has ‘traditionally’ entailed the absence of responsibility and accountability. It has meant that states have a right to govern themselves however they choose, free from outside interference. Only in recent years, the tale goes, have the indefeasible rights that sovereigns have long enjoyed been challenged by notions that sovereigns are responsible and accountable for the protection of their populations. Ideas of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ and ‘the responsibility to protect’ which have emerged since the end of the Cold War are framed as radical departures from the way in which sovereignty has been ‘traditionally’ understood. This thesis challenges this conventional account of the history of sovereignty. It argues that the notion that sovereignty entails responsibilities is not new. Rather, responsibilities have been an enduring feature of the social and historical construction of sovereignty. The thesis demonstrates that sovereignty has been understood to involve varied and evolving responsibilities since it was first articulated in early modern Europe and it traces the historical development of the particular tension between the right of sovereign states to be self-governing and free from outside interference and their responsibility to secure the safety of their populations.

This thesis will reassess the traditional doctrine of diplomatic protection in light of two significant and related developments in modern international law: (i) the proliferation of international human rights law and its granting of rights to individuals as subjects of international law; and (ii) the evolving conception of State sovereignty as including responsibility pursuant to the U.N.’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. It will argue that the traditional doctrine – which holds that States have a discretionary right to espouse claims on behalf of their own nationals for wrongs committed against them by other States, but that the individuals harmed have no right to protection – is outdated and that these developments should lead to the recognition of a limited individual right and concomitant State obligation to provide diplomatic protection in certain circumstances. Responsibility to protect thus confirms a duty to protect using diplomatic means.

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.

This thesis will reassess the traditional doctrine of diplomatic protection in light of two significant and related developments in modern international law: (i) the proliferation of international human rights law and its granting of rights to individuals as subjects of international law; and (ii) the evolving conception of State sovereignty as including responsibility pursuant to the U.N.’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. It will argue that the traditional doctrine – which holds that States have a discretionary right to espouse claims on behalf of their own nationals for wrongs committed against them by other States, but that the individuals harmed have no right to protection – is outdated and that these developments should lead to the recognition of a limited individual right and concomitant State obligation to provide diplomatic protection in certain circumstances. Responsibility to protect thus confirms a duty to protect using diplomatic means.

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.

This project seeks to expand the dialogue about international humanitarian intervention in a complex emergency or mass atrocity situation by asserting that post-intervention political reconstruction is as essential to the intervention as is the provision of material humanitarian aid and even the ostensive goal of protecting the aid regimes. As a result of this assertion, consideration of humanitarian intervention has, to this point, been too focused on the legal, ethical, and theoretical implications of war and hegemony. The current dialogue centers on its security studies aspects, owing largely to its Cold War precedent. However, a full consideration of the subject of humanitarian intervention must also consider the broader implications of the intervention, including recovery and mitigation of future events. When this is considered at all, the literature to this point largely treats post-intervention establishment of political and social infrastructure as a secondary consideration to the military intervention. The primary approach to address this needed expansion includes drawing a comparison between humanitarian intervention and a similar domestic concept: comprehensive emergency management theory. While there are several dissimilarities between emergency management and its putative international correlate, the theoretical framework it establishes—including not only the response found in the usual literature, but also the well-defined concepts of recovery, mitigation, and preparedness—can expand our understanding of the implications and requirements of humanitarian intervention. It also provides an important lesson in its mirror example for the prescribed evolution of humanitarian intervention scholarship away from its Cold War genesis. This is because domestic emergency management also has a foundation in security studies concerns, but has since evolved into an all-hazards philosophy that embraces prevention and recovery as much as simple response to a human crisis. This parallel will provide a framework for approaching humanitarian intervention that goes significantly beyond the literature to this point and provides a much more encompassing approach to the subject than there has been to this point.