En faisant un tour d’horizon des diverses règles de Droit International Public en vigueur, ce travail tentera de faire comprendre à son lecteur l’importance de la protection des droits de l’enfant dans le monde entier. Aujourd’hui encore trop d’enfants meurent chaque jour à cause de conflits, de maladies, de malnutrition…, beaucoup trop sont exploités et n’ont pas la possibilité de suivre des cours dans une école, voyant ainsi leur avenir leur échapper tous les jours un peu plus. C’est contre tous ces problèmes, trop récurrents, que les Etats se doivent d’intervenir en exerçant leur rôle de législateur, tant sur le plan international que sur le plan national. Mais ils doivent aussi assumer celui de sujet de droit en respectant les conventions internationales qu’ils se sont engagés à respecter de leur plein gré. Ce respect les oblige à protéger les enfants afin de leur offrir la possibilité de bénéficier des programmes d’aide mis en place sur le terrain par de nombreuses organisations humanitaires clamant haut et fort que tout le monde doit agir, d’une manière ou d’une autre, pour permettre le développement d’actions de plus en plus variées et de plus en plus efficaces malgré les difficultés. / By making a survey of the several rules of current public international law, this dissertation will try to make the reader undestand the importance of the protection of children's rights all over the world. Nowadays, children die every minute because of conflicts, diseases, malnutrition..., a lot of them are exploited and have no possibilities of going to school, seeing their future escaping them every day a little more. It is against all these too recurring problems that States have to intervene by exercising their legislator's role, both on the international level and on the national level. But they also have to take their role of subject of law by respecting the international conventions which they made a commitment to respect of their own free will. This respect requires them to protect the children by offering them the possibility of enjoying humanitarian aid set up by many organizations loudly proclaiming that everybody has to act, in one way or another, to allow the development of many and various actions in spite of difficulties.

本文研析2011年至2016年期間，中國在人道干預立場上對利比亞和敘利亞的差異比較，試圖分析中國在「國家保護責任」（Responsibility to Protect）上的態度轉變。中國於安理會1970號和1973號針對利比亞內戰所涉及的人道干預決議案，不但同意將利比亞情勢送交國際刑事法院，更間接默許西方軍事干預利比亞，此與一向不干預他國內政、尊重他國主權為外交原則的中國相違背。然而，發生於同時期、同受到阿拉伯之春影響、同為推翻獨裁政權的敘利亞內戰，中國卻多次否決對其進一步軍事干預，形成人道干預立場上的矛盾。 而本文試圖利用「國家利益」和「形象建構」兩大分析途徑，探究中國隨著負責任大國的形象建立，和在國際事務上話語權漸增的情況下，於人道干預立場的考量是否有所改變或偏向。本文認為中國在利比亞案例上突破以往不干預他國內政的立場，並不代表中國對「國家保護責任」態度的轉變。其次，中國當前在人道干預立場上，仍以國家利益為主，形象建構為輔，特別是中共政權維穩、國家安全為首要。此外，中國也正試圖擺脫俄羅斯和西方國家的單方影響，建立一套獨立自主的人道干預外交原則。

Submitted by Biblioteca Central (biblioteca@unicap.br) on 2018-01-03T20:34:31Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Rayanne_Alves_Monteiro.pdf: 1103266 bytes, checksum: 9bbefaa17133a45d00976eac88d8eb9f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-01-03T20:34:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rayanne_Alves_Monteiro.pdf: 1103266 bytes, checksum: 9bbefaa17133a45d00976eac88d8eb9f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-02 / The movement of personalization of Lawand the conception that every legal norm of the Brazilian legal system must inexorably follow the precepts relating to fundamental rights, embodied in the Federal Constitution of 1988, initiates the conception of Civil-constitutional Law and, consequently, changes the paradigm of family relationshipsand the scope of the guardianship by the State. The affectivity becomes the foundation of the family law. The new constitutional order establishes to the category of fundamental right,the special protection of the family by the State, accepting the porosity of an open and plural system in the constitution of the family entities.Given this new scenario,it is also understood that the theory of the efficiency of the fundamental rights is applied in the relations between private individuals. In face of these constitutional transformations, it is now understood that the relations marked by ostensibility, affectivity, stability and subjective good faith are considered families, therefore must be protected by the juridical order, irrespective of the form it takes. The open concept of family results in new pretensions, in which people are seeking the recognition of the simultaneous families. The discussion regarding the possibility of their recognition revolves around the multiplicity of the affective-sexual relationships. The initial step concerning the mentioned recognition is the affirmation that monogamy is a principle that has been slackened with the plural conception of the contemporary family.The Family, as a place of promotion of individuals, cannot suffer great restrictions by the State, which may only intervene to guarantee the dignity of its members, according to the principle of minimum intervention of the state. In face of legislative omission by the State, in recognizing the existence of the simultaneous family as a family arrangement compatible with the constitutional protection, it is up to the Legal State , by means of the application of the theory of efficiency of the fundamental rights in the private relationships, to compensate for the legislative omission, guaranteeing the recognition of the effects of personal and patrimonial nature of the simultaneous families as a way of reaching the purpose of conception of the eudemonist constitutional family, which is the quest for happiness and guarantee of dignity of the individuals who compose it . / O movimento de repersonalização do Direito e a concepção de que toda norma jurídica do ordenamento brasileiro deve inexoravelmente seguir os preceitos dos direitos fundamentais, inseridos na Constituição Federal de 1988, dá início à concepção do Direito Civilconstitucional e, consequentemente, muda o paradigma das relações familiares e da abrangência da tutela por parte do Estado. A afetividade passa a ser fundamento do direito de família. A nova ordem constitucional erige à categoria de direito fundamental a especial proteção da família pelo Estado, acolhendo a porosidade de um sistema aberto e plural na constituição das entidades familiares. Diante desse novo cenário, passa-se também a entender que a teoria da eficácia dos direitos fundamentais aplica-se nas relações entre os particulares. À frente dessas transformações constitucionais, passa-se a entender que as relações marcadas pela ostensibilidade, afetividade, estabilidade e boa-fé subjetivasão consideradas famílias, logo devem ser protegidas pelo ordenamento jurídico, independente da forma com a qual se revestem. O conceito aberto de família faz com que surjam novas pretensões, em que pessoas vêm buscando o reconhecimento das famílias simultâneas. A discussão quanto à possibilidade de seu reconhecimento gira em torno da multiplicidade das relações afetivo-sexuais. O passo inicial para o referido reconhecimento é a afirmação de quea monogamia é um princípio que vem sendo abrandado com a concepção plural da família contemporânea. A família, como lugar de promoção dos indivíduos, não pode sofrer grandes restrições por parte do Estado, que somente poderá intervir para garantir a dignidade dos seus membros, segundo o princípio da intervenção mínima do Estado. Na omissão do Estado-legislador, em reconhecer a existência da família simultânea como um arranjo familiar compatível com a proteção constitucional, cabe ao Estado-juiz,por meio da aplicação da teoria da eficácia dos direitos fundamentais nas relações privadas, suprir a omissão legislativa, garantindo o reconhecimentodos efeitos de cunho pessoal e patrimonial das famílias simultâneas como forma de alcançar-se a finalidade da concepção da família constitucional eudemonista, que é a busca da felicidade e garantia da dignidade dos indivíduos que a compõem.

The aim of this work is to analyze the relationship between R2P and violent regime change. The work gives an overview of the establishment of R2P on the international scene, and then deals with its problem of selectivity in its application in practice. Despite the formal adoption of R2P in 2005 by all UN member states, R2P has been since then applied to similar cases of humanitarian crises in different ways. The problem of selectivity of R2P is fuelling the criticism of its legitimacy, because it is according to many a mean for achieving regime change. The most important reason for R2P's criticism is the connection between R2P and violent regime change, and that is the central theme of this work. Based on an analysis of the documents which form R2P, the work concludes that military intervention under R2P must not be deliberately used for regime change. However, there may be situations, when regime change is necessary for the protection of civilians; which means that regime change can be regarded as legitimate only if it is as an indirect result of the intervention. Therefore regime change is an integral part of R2P. The work aims to explore this ambivalent relationship and find out, where lies the boundary between legitimate overthrowing of a régime for the protection of civilians, and regime...

The thesis "Concept Responsibility to Protect Within International Community: Sudan Case Study" focuses on the R2P concept and its implications since its approval at the World Summit in 2005. The theoretical part of the thesis explains the R2P concept, its constitution, the three pillars and their main principles, and categories of crimes on which the concept can be applied. This section includes an analysis of attitudes, which the key international actors adopted towards the R2P. The last chapter of the theoretical part examines the main problems, challenges and difficulties of the concept which could the international community face when implementing the concept. The practical part of this thesis relates to the conflict in Darfur. Its first chapter deals with the evolution of tensions in Sudan, which had affected the current conflict. The second chapter focuses on the present conflict since its beginning in 2003, including the debate about the possibility of potential genocide committed by the Sudanese government. The involvement of the key international actors (the UNSC and AU) in the conflict is discussed in this part as well. Finally, the last part interconnects the concept through the three pillars with the conflict and; it evaluates functioning of the R2P in the case of Sudan. The evaluation...

No description available.

[pt] Esta dissertação oferece uma análise crítica do discurso da Responsabilidade de Proteger (R2P). Para isso, eu sigo o entendimento pós-estruturalista da língua como performatividade, isto é, eu entendo que língua em uso (discurso) tem um papel no processo de construção de subjetividades. Eu adoto a estrutura de análise de dupla leitura de Richard Ashley para problematizar o discurso da R2P. Na primeira leitura, eu leio o discurso tradicional da R2P, começando por algumas de suas fundações no direito internacional e em debates sobre intervenção, soberania e segurança humana, seguindo para as discussões que ajudaram a constituir e delinear o escopo desse conceito. Esse discurso, como podemos ver, foi proposto como se fosse para a proteção de um universal (a humanidade). Dessa forma, na segunda leitura eu proponho uma reversão nas estruturas hierárquicas sobre as quais esse discurso foi erguido. Começando com uma crítica à estrutura da modernidade, eu argumento que o discurso da R2P, como parte dessa estrutura, reproduz suas lógicas de diferenciação e práticas de exclusão. Ao trazer o corpo daqueles que sofrem com a violência humanitária, eu questiono o que aconteceria se a R2P fosse de fato universal. Meu argumento é que, ao reivindicar um universal enquanto diferencia entre aqueles que promovem a proteção, aqueles que são protegidos, aqueles que poderiam ser protegidos mas sofreram os danos colaterais da violência humanitária, e aqueles que não podem ser protegidos, o discurso da R2P performa na constituição dessas distintas subjetividades. / [en] This dissertation offers a critical analysis of the discourse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). For this, I follow the poststructuralist understanding of language as performativity, i.e., I understand that language in use (discourse) has a role in the process of construction of subjectivities. I adopt Richard Ashley s structure of analysis of double reading to problematize the discourse of R2P. In the first reading, I read the traditional discourse of R2P, starting from some of its foundations in international law and in debates about intervention, sovereignty, and human security, following to the discussions that helped to constitute and delineate the scope of this concept. This discourse, we see, was proposed as if it were for the protection of a universal (the humanity). Accordingly, in the second reading I propose a reversal in the hierarchical structures upon which this discourse has been erected. Starting with a critique of the structure of modernity, I argue that the R2P discourse, as part of this structure, reproduces its logic of differentiations and exclusionist practices. By bringing the body of those who suffer from the humanitarian violence, I question what would happen if R2P were in fact for a universal. My argument is that, by claiming for a universal while it differentiates between those that provide protection, those that are protected, those that could be protected but suffered the collateral damages of the humanitarian violence, and those that cannot be protected, the discourse of R2P performs in the constitution of these distinct subjectivities.

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis / European Community-funded Sustainable Peacebuilding (SPBUILD) Research Training Network; University of Deusto’s ‘RETOS’ research group on socio-cultural and human rights challenges in a changing world.

Dans ce travail, nous lèverons le voile sur la notion d’État souverain en droit international ainsi que son principe directeur, le principe de l’égalité souveraine des États et son corollaire, la non-ingérence dans les affaires internes d’un État. Dans une première analyse, nous établirons un rapport entre la souveraineté des États en droit international et l’ingérence humanitaire. Cette analyse se fera sur la base de plusieurs questions : l’ingérence dans les affaires internes d’un État pour des motifs humanitaires constitue-t-elle une atteinte au principe de la souveraineté des États ? Mieux, l’affliction des populations légitime-t-elle l’ingérence humanitaire dans un État ? Nous remettrons ainsi en cause le concept de souveraineté des États en faisant la lumière sur la complexité du principe de non-ingérence dans les affaires internes d’un État ; de même que les limites ou atténuations à la souveraineté des États. Ces atténuations nous aideront d’une part, à prouver le caractère licite de l’intervention humanitaire et d’autre part, à déterminer le champ d’application de cette dernière. Nous aboutirons à la licéité de l’ingérence humanitaire sous certaines conditions. Dans une seconde analyse, nous mettrons l’accent sur l’instrumentalisation ou les dérives de l’aide humanitaire ayant pour but la protection des droits humains. Nous nous sommes posé certaines questions : quelle est la légitimité de la croissance des opérations militaires en Afrique par les États dits puissants pour des motifs humanitaires ? Pourrait-on, à la lumière de l’instrumentalisation de l’ingérence humanitaire, parler d’une possible nouvelle forme de colonisation? Notre réflexion sera principalement axée sur les relations nord-sud. Dans une analyse basée sur les instruments juridiques en droit international humanitaire (DIH) et en droit international des droits de l’homme (DIDH) accompagnés d’exemples précis, nous montrerons comment les grandes puissances utilisent l’aide humanitaire pour assouvir leurs propres besoins (généralement d’ordre économique) dans les pays en voie de développement. Nous prouverons au cours de ce travail, à quel point l’action humanitaire est devenue un objet de politique voire un instrument de politique étrangère. En effet, bon nombre d’actions militaires, revêtues de motifs humanitaires, orchestrées dans certains pays du sud par certaines grandes puissances n’ont d’autres buts que la recherche du profit. La pratique humanitaire est trop souvent manipulée et cache des intérêts purement égoïstes des États. Nous conclurons finalement à la nécessité de la neutralité et de l’objectivité de l’action humanitaire. / In this work, we will lift the veil on the notion of sovereign state in international law and its guiding principle, the principle of the sovereign equality of States and its corollary, non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. In a first analysis, we will establish a relationship between state sovereignty in international law and humanitarian interference. This analysis will be made on the basis of several questions: does interference in the internal affairs of a state on humanitarian grounds constitute an infringement of the principle of state sovereignty? Does the affliction of populations legitimize humanitarian interference in a state? Thus, we will challenge the concept of state sovereignty by shedding light on the complexity of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a state, as well as the limits or attenuation to state sovereignty. These attenuations will help us, on the one hand, to determine its cope. We will surely end up with the legality of humanitarian interference under certain conditions. In a second analysis, we will focus on the instrumentalization, or abuses of humanitarian aid aimed at protecting human rights. We asked ourselves certain questions: What is the legitimacy of the growth of military operations in Africa by rich countries on humanitarian grounds? In the light of the instrumentalization of humanitarian interference, could we talk about a possible new form of colonization? Our reflection will focus mainly on North-south relations. In an analysis based on legal instruments in international humanitarian law (IHL) and International Human Rights (IHRL) with specific examples, we will show how the major powers use humanitarian aid to meet their own needs (generally economic) in developing countries. In the course of this work, we will demonstrate the extent to which humanitarian action has become an instrument of foreign policy. Indeed, many military actions, with humanitarians’ motives, orchestrated in Black and Arab Africa by certain major powers have no other goal than the pursuit of profit. We argue that humanitarian practice is too often manipulated and hides purely selfish interests of states. In the end, we will conclude that there is a need for neutrality and objectivity in humanitarian action.

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 / M.A. (International Politics)