Suchergebnisse

The United Nations embraced the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) in 2005, which states that it is a shared responsibility of the international community to protect peoples from the atrocities of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Regarding Myanmar, the UN Human Rights Council claimed there were gross violations of human rights and international law in Myanmar's Rakhine state. Also, the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission found evidence of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and accordingly requested that the international community employ R2P to protect the Rohingya people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights acknowledged the clearance operation that occurred on 25 August 2017 at the hands of the Myanmar military regime was a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing". In spite of this, the international community has taken no effective measures to protect the Rohingya community from what was an "entirely predictable" act of genocide. This paper is a qualitative investigation, a review of possible strategic reasons for why the international community has failed to protect the Rohingya. The paper relies on secondary scholarly literature, policy records, UN, government, and NGO reports, grey literature sources, and online materials. ASEAN's non-interference strategy, the OIC's dependency on diplomacy, the EU's priority for the hybrid democratic transition of Myanmar, the UN's political dialogue strategy, and the UN Security Council's structural weaknesses are obstacles to the international community preventing genocide in Myanmar. This study contributes to understanding the strategies of ASEAN, OIC, EU, UN, ICC, and the ICJ in relation to the Rohingya issue. It examines the chances of these organisations championing R2P, and also considers whether the Rohingya crisis is too intractable or difficult to resolve under current arrangements. (Asian Aff/GIGA)

Humanitarian relief organizations face many challenges due to the increasing number of both natural and man-made disasters such as drought, famine, war, and conflict. According to the United Nations, these challenges will continue to increase because of the risen vulnerability of humanitarian supply chains, especially regarding cost, accuracy, and duration. In this systematic review, we explore methods of lowering the cost of humanitarian responses, more specifically in regard to the education and training of aid workers.

Abstract
Universal Periodic Review provides a unique insight into states' perceptions of IHRL. States issue recommendations on fulfilling human rights obligations and commitments. HRC Resolution 5/1 sets out the bases of the reviews: the UN Charter, the UDHR, human rights instruments to which the state is party and voluntary pledges and commitments. Relevant IHL is 'take[n] into account'. Analysing the identification of these bases of review and how they have been used in the 57,685 recommendations from the first two cycles of UPR, we demonstrate states' understanding of the term 'human rights' and their preferences for certain sources of law. States have not limited themselves to the bases of review in Resolution 5/1. They have used additional materials and rejected distinctions between 'hard' and 'soft' law. They have interpreted the notion of 'human rights' expansively but largely ignored regional human rights instruments. A body of generalised, non-specific IHRL has been recognised.