scholarly journals Normal Peace: A New Strategic Narrative of Intervention

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lemay-Hebert ◽  
Gëzim Visoka
Keyword(s):  
Human Security ◽  
International Order ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Optimal Intervention

International actors have used multiple discursive frameworks for justifying interventions, from human security to the responsibility to protect, and, most recently, resilience-building. We argue that the language of normalization, hidden behind these narratives of interventions, has also contributed to structure the intervention landscape, albeit in less obvious and overt ways than other competing narratives of intervention. This article disentangles the different practices of normalization in order to highlight their ramifications. It introduces the concept of <em>normal peace</em>—a new conceptual reference to understand interventions undertaken by the international community to <em>impose</em>, <em>restore</em> or <em>accept</em> normalcy in turbulent societies. The article argues that the optimization of interventions entails selective responses to govern risk and adapt to the transitional international order. The art of what is politically possible underlines the choice of optimal intervention, be that to impose an external order of normalcy, restore the previous order of normalcy, or accept the existing order of normalcy.

scholarly journals Responsibility to Protect and Human Security: Doctrines Destroying or Strengthening the Sovereignty?

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-103
Author(s):  
Jenna Uusitalo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Human Security ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Classical Perception

Summary Responsibility to protect (R2P) and human security are controversial doctrines which reflect the international politics rather than purely defend their original legal aims. Simultaneously both doctrines demonstrate the change in the international law and politics as well as challenge the classical perception of the sovereignty. Through the practical examples the present article illustrates how these doctrines are affecting to sovereignty and discusses some selected problems attached to the interventions applied under these principles. Essentially the article argues that, despite their noble ideology, doctrines of R2P and human security are too extensive to be applied coherently by the international community, but that they can nevertheless have potential to strengthen sovereignty.

A conceptual safari: Africa and R2P

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolanda Spies ◽  
Patrick Dzimiri
Keyword(s):  
Human Security ◽  
International Community ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Critical Stage ◽  
Doctrinal Development ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Key Concepts

The Responsibility to Protect is a new human security paradigm that re-conceptualizes state sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right. Its seminal endorsement by the 2005 World Summit has however not consolidated the intellectual parameters of the norm. Neither has it succeeded in galvanizing R2P's doctrinal development; hence the January 2009 appeal by the UN secretary-general for the international community to operationalize R2P at the doctrinal level, in addition to at institutional and policy levels. R2P represents a critical stage in the debate on intervention for human protection purposes, but its key concepts require more exploration. Africa is a uniquely placed stakeholder in R2P on account of its disproportionate share of humanitarian crises and because Africans have played key roles in conceptualizing the norm. The continent should therefore not just offer an arena for, but indeed take the lead in, the conceptual journey that R2P's doctrinal development requires.Spanish La responsabilidad de proteger es un nuevo paradigma de seguridad humana que reconceptualiza la soberanía del Estado como una responsabilidad en lugar de un derecho. Pese al respaldo inicial que obtuvo en la Cumbre Mundial de 2005, los parámetros intelectuales de esta norma no se han consolidado. En esta cumbre tampoco se logró fortalecer el desarrollo de la doctrina del R2P (Responsibility to Protect), por lo que se produjo un llamado en enero de 2009 por parte del secretario general de la ONU para poner en práctica el nivel de la doctrina del R2P, además de los niveles institucional y político. La R2P representa una etapa crítica en el debate sobre la intervención con fines de protección humana, pero sus conceptos clave requieren más profundización. África tiene una posición única en la R2P dada su parte desproporcionada en las crisis humanitarias y porque los africanos han tenido un papel clave en la conceptualización de la norma. Por ello, el continente debería no sólo ofrecer un espacio, sino de hecho tomar la delantera en el trazado conceptual que requiere el desarrollo de la doctrina de la R2P.French Le «devoir de protection» est un nouveau paradigme de la sécurité humaine qui redéfinit la souveraineté de l'État comme une responsabilité plutôt que comme un droit. Cependant, lors du Sommet Mondial de 2005 les paramètres du concept n'ont pas été consolidés. Ce sommet n'a pas non plus réussi à activer le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection (en anglais «Responsibility to Protect» ou «R2P»), d'où l'appel lancé en janvier 2009 par le Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies à la communauté internationale pour qu'elle rende le «devoir de protection» opérationnel à un niveau doctrinal en plus des niveaux institutionnel et politique. Le devoir de protection représente un moment critique du débat sur les interventions ayant pour but la protection humaine, mais ses concepts méritent une analyse encore plus approfondie. En matière de devoir de protection, l'Afrique est une partie prenante incomparable, du fait de sa part disproportionnée de crises humanitaires, mais aussi parce que les Africains ont joué un rôle clé dans la conceptualisation de ce e norme-là. Dans ces conditions, le continent africain ne devrait-il pas, non seulement offrir le terrain d'étude, mais aussi prendre la tête dans le cheminement conceptuel que le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection exige ?

The Leeriness Objection to the Responsibility to Protect

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Order ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Just Cause

This chapter argues that even non-abusive interventions (those that are motivated purely by altruistic concern, have a just cause, are a last resort etc.) are morally problematic due to their effects on the international order. The trouble is that ‘bystander states’—those that are neither prosecuting the intervention nor targeted by it—usually do not have sufficient direct evidence that the intervention is just and properly motivated, nor can they trust the testimony of the intervening state. Thus, for all that bystander states know, any and every instance of humanitarian intervention is abusive: an act of unjust international aggression masquerading as something else. This, in turn, weakens the willingness of these bystander states to comply with the non-aggression norm themselves, since states are ‘conditional cooperators’—they abide by norms only insofar as they are reasonably assured that other states in the international arena are abiding.

A Crime against Humanity? Implications and Prospects of the Responsibility to Protect in the Wake of Cyclone Nargis

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Langmore ◽  
Ashley McLachlan-Bent
Keyword(s):  
East Asian ◽  
International Community ◽  
Military Regime ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Debate ◽  
International Assistance ◽  
Disaster Assessment ◽  
Cyclone Nargis ◽  
Threshold Criteria ◽  
Coercive Intervention

AbstractIn May 2008 Cyclone Nargis created significant international debate when the ruling military regime in Myanmar refused to allow international relief supplies and specialists into the country. The discussion that followed included invoking the principle of Responsibility to Protect as a way of forcing the regime to accept international assistance. This proposal caused sharp division amongst governments, relief agencies, journalists and citizens. The regime's shocking refusal to accept assistance constituted a crime against humanity and, as such, deserved consideration as an R2P situation. The damage which military action involves was severely underestimated by those proposing it and although the situation following Nargis clearly met the threshold criteria, permitting coercive intervention, the precautionary principles were not satisfied, thus making coercive intervention under R2P impermissible. The involvement of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) following Nargis facilitated entry of disaster assessment teams and some aid into Myanmar. In light of Myanmar's fear of intervention in its affairs, the international community should have used R2P to frame a response and worked with ASEAN from the outset to pressure the regime to respond to the disaster more effectively.

The Genesis of R2P

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Cater ◽  
David M. Malone
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Human Security ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
The World ◽  
High Level ◽  
Early Human ◽  
Outcome Document

This chapter addresses the evolution of the responsibility to protect concept from September 1999 to its adoption in the World Summit Outcome Document of September 2005. It covers Kofi Annan’s ‘dilemma of intervention’, some early human security initiatives by Canada including the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and its report The Responsibility to Protect which first articulated the moniker as well as the concept, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, the negotiations and Outcome Document of the World Summit, and the early incorporation of protection of civilians within Security Council resolutions. Throughout this narrative, the importance of sustained advocacy by key individuals—including Kofi Annan, Lloyd Axworthy, and Gareth Evans among others—is presented as vital to the evolution (in theory and in practice) of the responsibility to protect.

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.

The use of force to protect civilians and humanitarian action: the case of Libya and beyond

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (884) ◽  
pp. 1063-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Pommier
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Humanitarian Organizations ◽  
Crucial Problem

AbstractThe Libyan crisis of 2011 has again raised the crucial problem of the choice of means in protecting civilians. Authorized by the international community as part of military operations in Libya, the use of force in protecting civilians has revived the concept of ‘humanitarian war’ and has raised a number of issues for humanitarian organizations, in particular concerning the notion of neutral, impartial, and independent humanitarian action.1 The article focuses on these humanitarian issues and, inter alia, on the possible impact on humanitarian action of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was at the basis of the intervention in Libya.

scholarly journals Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Wallace Brown ◽  
Alexandra Bohm
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
Public Right

Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.

Can the liberal international order survive the Anthropocene? Three propositions for converging peace and survival

2020 ◽  
pp. 205301962098232
Author(s):  
Dahlia Simangan
Keyword(s):  
Human Security ◽  
Economic Models ◽  
Core Values ◽  
International Order ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Environmental Threats ◽  
Global Environmental

A state-centric, militaristic, and capitalist-driven model of the liberal world appears incompatible with the measures required for addressing the global environmental threats in the proposed new geological epoch called the Anthropocene. While there have been discussions suggesting or implying the rejection or radical disruption of existing sets of institutional arrangements in global politics, I propose the possibility of locating effective responses to the Anthropocene challenges within the existing order, albeit a reformed or revised one. This paper presents ways of transforming the liberal international order, without abandoning some of its core values and institutions, through a greater emphasis on human security, global disarmament, and alternative economic models. The convergence of the liberal pursuit of peace and the global pursuit of survival is possible in the Anthropocene.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document