Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Stahn
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Offe

The “will of the (national) people” is the ubiquitously invoked reference unit of populist politics. The essay tries to demystify the notion that such will can be conceived of as a unique and unified substance deriving from collective ethnic identity. Arguably, all political theory is concerned with arguing for ways by which citizens can make e pluribus unum—for example, by coming to agree on procedures and institutions by which conflicts of interest and ideas can be settled according to standards of fairness. It is argued that populists in their political rhetoric and practice typically try to circumvent the burden of such argument and proof. Instead, they appeal to the notion of some preexisting existential unity of the people’s will, which they can redeem only through practices of repression and exclusion.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nadzir

Water plays a very important role in supporting human life and other living beings as goods that meet public needs. Water is one of the declared goods controlled by the state as mentioned in the constitution of the republic of Indonesia. The state control over water indicated that water management can bring justice and prosperity for all Indonesian people. However, in fact, water currently becomes a product commercialized by individuals and corporations. It raised a question on how the government responsibility to protect the people's right to clean water. This study found that in normative context, the government had been responsible in protecting the people’s right over the clean water. However, in practical context, it found that the government had not fully protected people's right over clean water. The government still interpreted the state control over water in the form of creating policies, establishing a set of regulations, conducting management, and also supervision.


2020 ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
R. F.o. Veliev

A current theoretical and practical legal basis for creation of regulatory acts in the Russian Federation is discussed. A current relationship between the issued regulatory acts and some criteria of legal norm classification is shown. Legalization of the President address to the Parliament of the Russian Federation as a substantial element of the legal norm-making in a democratic state is revealed.


Author(s):  
Richard Caplan

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document