Suchergebnisse

Efforts by international organizations to prevent and punish genocide are hampered by a fundamental tension that exists within international relations: that between sovereignty and responsibility. On one hand, as a matter of international law and diplomatic practice, all states are entitled to a high degree of autonomy in governing their domestic affairs. This includes managing the relationships between their governments and citizens and between the various groups in society. Implicit in this entitlement is the right to be free from external interference in matters that are deemed to be domestic. On the other hand, all states have an interest in ensuring that governments adhere to basic principles of governance, including the protection of their population's security and wellbeing. While the definition of proper governance changes over time, there has been a strong consensus that deliberate attempts to eliminate entire groups goes well beyond this standard. This paper is concerned with how the international community tries to protect populations that are the victims of this most extreme form of brutality without threatening the principle of state sovereignty, a principle that has been the bedrock of international order and stability since the early days of the nation-state system. The accompanying bibliography provides additional reading for those interested in this debate. Adapted from the source document.

Explores the tension between intergovernmentalism & transnationalism within the UN. Although the UN was created to be a forum for interstate negotiation, cooperation, & conflict resolution, it also deals with transnational matters that do not directly involve state interests or actors. The intergovernmental & transnational foundations of the UN system are examined to argue that traditional theories of international organization fall short of adequately explaining the transnational aspects. It is contended that, in addition to being an international forum, the UN is comprised of a complex system of specialized agencies, nongovernmental organizations, & affiliated groups, making it an "international community" that is independent of the states that compose it. Both the benefits & inherent tensions of this broadly defined community are explored. It is maintained that international organizations like the UN provide opportunities for nongovernmental actors to exercise influence in world politics; however, international organizations can become incapacitated when the interests of states come into direct conflict with interests of the broader community. The paradox this conflict represents for theories of international relations is discussed. J. Lindroth

Examines the paradox inherent in international relations whereby international law & diplomacy favor state autonomy in domestic affairs while multilateral treaties & international institutions allow for collective action against governments violating generally accepted norms of behavior. It is contended that this paradox is based on the character of sovereignty, which specifies that "individual states are independent, but not autonomous, from the collectivity of states." At issue is establishing the conditions under which the international community has assumed the right & responsibility to intercede to protect individuals & groups in sovereign states. The manner in which the principle of sovereignty limits & empowers state collectivities to enforce international norms is explored, highlighting the dialectic of sovereignty arising from the Westphalian system in which sovereignty is both a constitutive principle & derivate. Attention turns to scrutinizing international communities as conceptually independent of the states that constitute them, arguing that only with general consensus can a broad-based community of states legitimately intervene in the affairs of a sovereign. Because international norms change over time, how & why some rules & practices emerge during certain historical periods must be considered to explain the conditions necessary for legitimate multilateral intervention without violating sovereignty. Three conditions are seen as prerequisite for the existence of the kind of pluralistic international communities necessary to account for the relative consensus needed to legitimate intervention: (1) There must be a least a modicum of consensus among major powers of the fundamentals of international politics. (2) The consensus principles must enjoy broad support from smaller states & their key domestic groups. (3) There must be a universal membership organization with the authority to create & enforce norms of behavior. Those specific norms & principles on which the community is based are looked at. The principles of legitimate post Cold War multilateral intervention are next assessed, delineating four generally accepted principles, eg, in cases where governments commit a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations deemed "shocking to the conscience of mankind." Some policy & theoretical implications are touched on in conclusion. J. Zendejas

There is an inherent tension between a dominant state's role as a hegemon and its role as a great power. Hegemons have the material capabilities to act unilaterally, yet they cannot remain hegemons if they do so at the expense of the system that they are trying to lead. Thus there is a contradiction between the propensity for a powerful state to take unilateral action in promoting its self-defined interest and its desire to maintain long-term systemic stability. This tension between parochial interest and international responsibility creates a phenomenon called the `paradox of hegemony'. This article conceptualizes this as a form of `role strain' in which hegemons are torn between their conflicting roles as great powers and systemic leaders. It illustrates these points by examining the tensions that have long defined the US relationship with the United Nations.