22. Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
pp. 334-349
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy ◽  
Stephen McLoughlin
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Security ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Cold War

This chapter examines the implications of humanitarian intervention for international security. It considers the debate between those who argue that the protection of civilians from genocide and mass atrocities is far more important than the principle of non-intervention in certain circumstances and those who oppose this proposition. This has become a particular problem in the post-Cold War world where the commission of atrocities in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur prompted calls for international society to step in to protect the victims with military force if necessary. Humanitarian intervention causes problems for international security by potentially weakening the rules governing the use of force in world politics. The chapter first considers the case against humanitarian intervention before discussing the principle known as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

22. Humanitarian Intervention

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Security ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Cold War

This chapter examines the implications of humanitarian intervention for international security. It considers the debate between those who argue that the protection of civilians from genocide and mass atrocities is far more important than the principle of non-intervention in certain circumstances and those who oppose this proposition. This has become a particular problem in the post-Cold War world where the commission of atrocities in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur prompted calls for international society to step in to protect the victims with military force if necessary. Humanitarian intervention causes problems for international security by potentially weakening the rules governing the use of force in world politics. The chapter first considers the case against humanitarian intervention before discussing the principle known as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

Peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 134-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Hassler
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
International Solidarity ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces

This article examines the debate surrounding the responsibility to protect [R2P] with particular reference to the use of peacekeeping forces in that regard. Post-Cold War, human protection had expanded into a matter of international concern. Yet, where formerly humanitarian intervention was the mot du jour, a change in conceptual vocabulary led to the introduction of R2P and to a redefinition of sovereignty. Accordingly, the primary responsibility to protect its citizens rests with the sovereign state but, owing to international solidarity, the residual responsibility rests with the international community. Contextually, R2P is embedded in a continuum of responsibilities: prevent, react and rebuild. Proponents of the concept already see a norm in development. Still, divisions and confusion remain concerning the concept’s legal basis, its scope and its parameters. This is particularly relevant in view of peacekeeping forces, which have been increasingly deployed for humanitarian purposes. Because of ill-defined mandates and an overextension of resources, however, traditional peacekeeping is no longer suitable, lacking the resources, the personnel and the necessary expertise. To be able to fulfil the goals of R2P, peacekeeping will have to be redefined and the forces equipped with more robust mandates or fail.

Part 2 The Post-Cold War Era (1990–2000), 47 The Kosovo Crisis—1999

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franchini Daniel ◽  
Tzanakopoulos Antonios
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
Nato Intervention

This contribution discusses the forcible intervention by NATO against Serbia in 1999 in response to the situation in Kosovo. It sets out the facts and background of the crisis, along with the legal positions of the main protagonists and the reactions of the international community. It then proceeds to survey the debates surrounding the legality of the intervention and to assess the soundness of the legal justifications put forward by states and authors. Finally, it discusses the precedential value of the intervention, especially in view of claims of the existence or emergence of a rule or principle of international law permitting the unilateral use of force in response to humanitarian crises. The contribution concludes that the NATO intervention has significant precedential value in that it confirms the unlawfulness of forcible unilateral humanitarian intervention.

India on Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect: Shifting Nuances

2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeshi Choedon
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
Colonial Experience ◽  
Peace Enforcement ◽  
Sceptical View ◽  
Power Configuration

India’s opposition to humanitarian intervention has been influenced by its colonial experience and its predisposition towards the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. However, India did not adopt a strident opposition in the post-Cold War due to the changed power configuration. The article discusses how India adopted a cautious approach and yet used every opportunity to remind the international community the baleful effect of intervention in the internal affairs. After securing concession to a considerable extent on the ambitious Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and when most of the countries showed an inclination to accept humanitarian intervention in the form of ‘R2P’ at the UN summit in 2005, India grudgingly went along accepting it. India participated in the deliberation on the implementation of R2P and took its stand on various crises in which R2P was evoked. The experience of NATO’s Libya operation under R2P was regarded as substantiation of India’s apprehension of the misuse of the concept, and India reverted its position to the sceptical view of humanitarian intervention/R2P. By mere complaining about the mixing of peace enforcement with peacekeeping, when the United Nations deployed ‘intervention brigade’ for the protection of civilians, India lost the opportunity to take the initiative to propose a new mechanism to deal with the humanitarian crisis in atrocious internal conflicts.

The Turbulent 1990s

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Current Policy ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
History Of ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
Current Reality

The responsibility to protect is central to the current policy debate on humanitarian intervention in war zones, and so it is instructive to explore its immediate post-Cold War origins in the decade preceding the December 2001 release of the report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The history of the turbulent decade of the 1990s is essential to understanding the normative and policy problems that the Commission was trying to resolve as well as the remaining contestation that surrounds coming to the rescue of civilians caught in the throes of war. This chapter provides a sense of the practical and political problems that animated the development of R2P along with the distance yet to be covered to make mass atrocities an unpleasant memory instead of an ugly and continuing current reality.

Humanitarian Intervention and the Question of Sovereignty: The Case of ASEAN

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaun Narine
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Society ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Traditional Definition ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regional Institution ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Traditional Understanding ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

AbstractThe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has thrived as a regional institution that defends the traditional understanding of Westphalian sovereignty. In the post-Cold War era, however, pressure from within the international community to redefine sovereignty to accommodate humanitarian intervention has placed ASEAN in a difficult position. Historically, ASEAN has actively opposed the idea of humanitarian intervention. However, the ASEAN states have had to acknowledge that such a norm is emerging within the international society. Moreover, ASEAN's inconsistent defense of its professed values, particularly its reaction to the US invasion of Iraq, has undermined ASEAN's ability to defend the traditional definition of sovereignty.

Pandora's box?: humanitarian intervention and international law

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan Hehir
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

The three books reviewed here all address the question of the efficacy of international law and advance concerns about its future trajectory, albeit in contrasting ways. As has been well documented, the role of international law – specifically in the regulation of the use of force – has undergone significant scrutiny in the post-Cold War era. To a much greater extent than during the Cold War, contemporary conflicts and crises are invariably discussed with reference to international law, and the legality of a particular use of force has become a significant factor in assessing its legitimacy; one need only think of the importance placed on the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This increase in prominence suggests that international law has become more important, and unsurprisingly those used to the discipline's previous role as exotic curio have welcomed this sudden promotion (Robertson, 2000).

Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
M. A. Muqtedar Khan
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Socioeconomic Conditions ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Important Concept ◽  
Construction Of Identity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This paper seeks to understand the impact of current global politicaland socioeconomic conditions on the construction of identity. I advancean argument based on a two-step logic. First, I challenge the characterizationof current socioeconomic conditions as one of globalization bymarshaling arguments and evidence that strongly suggest that along withglobalization, there are simultaneous processes of localization proliferatingin the world today. I contend that current conditions are indicative ofthings far exceeding the scope of globalization and that they can bedescribed more accurately as ccglocalization.~H’2a ving established thisclaim, I show how the processes of glocalization affect the constructionof Muslim identity.Why do I explore the relationship between glocalization and identityconstruction? Because it is significant. Those conversant with current theoreticaldebates within the discipline of international relations’ are awarethat identity has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in internationalrelations theory in the post-Cold War era.4 In this article, I discussthe emergence of identity as an important concept in world politics.The contemporary field of international relations is defined by threephilosophically distinct research programs? rationalists: constructivists,’and interpretivists.’ The moot issue is essentially a search for the mostimportant variable that can help explain or understand the behavior ofinternational actors and subsequently explain the nature of world politicsin order to minimize war and maximize peace.Rationalists contend that actors are basically rational actors who seekthe maximization of their interests, interests being understood primarilyin material terms and often calculated by utility functions maximizinggiven preferences? Interpretivists include postmodernists, critical theorists,and feminists, all of whom argue that basically the extant worldpolitical praxis or discourses “constitute” international agents and therebydetermine their actions, even as they reproduce world politics by ...

‘Realism as an Unsentimental Intellectual Temper’

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Berdal
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
Theoretical Construction

The post-Cold War era witnessed a growing tendency to justify the use and the threat of use of military force in international relations on humanitarian grounds. Freedman’s writing on the use of armed force in pursuit of humanitarian goals and his contribution to the field are explored in this chapter. He rejects the traditional dichotomies in International Relations scholarship between Realism and Idealism. Freedman’s work on ‘New Interventionism’, with the Chicago Speech contribution at its core, suggests that it is unhelpful to delineate sharply different existing schools of thought, or paradigms. Freedman draws a distinction between ‘realism as an unsentimental temper’ and realism as a ‘theoretical construction.’ Liberal values are important for Freedman and their universality is to be asserted, but that does not mean being naively oblivious to dangers and difficulties inherent in seeking to promote them as standards against which Western governments should be judged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document