Suchergebnisse

Humanitarian intervention is one of the most debatable concepts in the field of international relations and international law. Most of the debate surrounding the concept of humanitarian intervention is centered on its legality, and with the absence of any authoritative decision as to whether it is a legal practice or not, one's only recourse is to assess existing literature in the hope of resolving the debate as to the legality of humanitarian intervention in international law. Hence, this thesis not only traces the origins of the practice of humanitarian intervention or questions the definitions which have been provided for the concept, but it also examines how the problem of the legality of humanitarian intervention has been debated in literature and/or doctrine using the vocabulary of Article 38(1) paragraph 4. Moreover, it examines the motives of the intervening agents, and more importantly, this work seeks to determine if the practice of humanitarian intervention is indeed in the process of becoming legalized, or whether the future of humanitarian intervention lies in the theory of fragmentation of international law. By assessing and identifying whether humanitarian intervention is in conformity with international law or not, this thesis hopes that it would provide a better understanding of the concept of humanitarian intervention, and thus help clarify some of the controversies which have surrounded interventions such as Kosovo and Libya. Keywords: Humanitarian Intervention, Process of Legalization, Process Theory, Theory of Fragmentation, Discourse Analysis. ; ÖZ: İnsani müdahale, uluslararası ilişkiler ve uluslararası hukuk alanında en tartışmalı kavramlarından biridir. İnsani müdahale kavramı konusundaki tartışmaların çoğu hukuksallık ile ilgilidir. Tartışmanın ana nedeni konu ile ilgili herhangi bir hukuk kuralı yada mahkeme kararı şeklinde bağlayıcı bir hükmün bulunmamasıdır. Bu çalışmada, uluslararası hukuk alanında insani müdahale kavramının yasallığı konusundaki mevcut literatür değerlendirilmektir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada hem insani müdahale kavramına ilişkin sorular tartışılmakta hem de bu kavramın litaratürdeki yeri değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca çalışma, müdahale etkenlerinin sebeplerini incelemekte ve insani müdahale uygulamasının yasallaşma süreci içinde yer alıp almadığını tartışmaktadır. Bu tartışma yapılırken uluslararası hukukun parçlanma teorisi ve süreç teorisi ele alınmaktadır. Bu çerçevede, insani müdahalenin uluslararası hukukla uyum içinde olup olmadığını değerlendirilerek, bu kavramın daha iyi anlaşılmasının sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: İnsani Müdahale, Hukukilişme Süreci, Süreç Teorisi, Parçalanma Teorisi, Söylem Çözümlemesi ; Master of Arts in International Relations. Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Dept. of International Relations, 2016. Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Hacer Soykan Adaoğlu.

Assuming an international commitment to intervene in severe and urgent humanitarian emergencies, as expressed by the doctrine 'The Responsibility to Protect', I discuss two objections that the duty to intervene is nonetheless a duty that is easily limited by other moral considerations. One objection is that this duty will exceed the reasonable limits of any obligation given the high personal cost of intervention. The other objection is that any duty to intervene will be an imperfect duty, and therefore not a duty that is ascribed to and demandable of any specific actor. I will argue that these objections do not undermine the principle of the responsibility to protect.

Perhaps the most discussed topic amongst just war theorists during the 1990s was the moral (and legal) justifiability of armed humanitarian interventions. Not surprisingly, that changed after the 9/11 terrorists attacks and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with topics such as the morality of terrorism, torture, and preventive war receiving the lion's share of attention. Nevertheless, for reasons both good, such as the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's endorsement of a limited duty of intervention in its report, The Responsibility to Protect, and bad, such as the conflict in Darfur, the morality of humanitarian intervention remains a live topic amongst theorists and practitioners alike. A striking feature of the contemporary discussion is the extent to which one prominent feature of the debate during the last decade of the twentieth century, namely the tension between intervention and respect for sovereignty, is no longer at issue. Theorists writing today almost universally endorse the moral permissibility of humanitarian intervention, at least under certain conditions. Disputes remain, of course, as to precisely what those conditions are, who enjoys the right to carry out a humanitarian intervention, and exactly how to balance those moral considerations that count in favor of it, e.g. protecting those subject to a genocidal campaign, against those that count against, e.g. preserving some degree ofrespect for the rule of international law and state sovereignty. Yet the fact that hardly any theorist, and not a few practitioners, would deny that under certain conditions humanitarian intervention is morally permissible, and indeed, something that certain agents have a right to do, marks a significant and, in my view, positive change from the previously dominant position.