Suchergebnisse

An examination of the US war in Afghanistan focuses on two aspects of the action that are relevant for debates on humanitarian intervention. The first consideration is how the US used humanitarian concerns to hold together an increasingly unstable international coalition & to win the hearts & minds of the Afghan people. The second factor is the human suffering that invariably results when a state's institutions crumble & the government is unable or unwilling to curb terrorist groups within its territory. Even when military action against terrorists is not undertaken to assist the civilian population, a sustainable peace is likely to require both military action & civilian reconstruction. An overview of justifications used to support the first phase of US military operations in Afghanistan is followed by a look at changing war aims articulated by the Bush Administration, & the impact of these shifting goals on debates over humanitarian intervention. The reality that disintegrating state institutions often provide a haven for terrorists which in turn puts populations at risk is discussed. J. Lindroth

An overview of the emergence of the nation-state determines that the bases for intervention were rooted in the multicultural heritage of every nation-state & that, unless there was a security or economic threat, indifference was registered to the actions of other states. Thus, considered is the significance of the nation-state in determining when to intervene, particularly in the context of globalization. The weakness of states is examined to underpin the assertion that global consensus regarding responses to complex emergencies is really more myth than reality. In this light, whether the UN ought to evolve into a true form of global governance is pondered, concluding that the state, weaker though it may be, remains the major political institution mediating between local cultures & the emerging global civilization. Attention turns to the bifurcation points (vs turning points) in conflicts, contending that they are the most significant point of intervention. After noting the theoretical conflicts at play, the huge gap between theory & actual foreign policy is examined, focusing on Rwanda. In conclusion, the humanitarian intervention implemented in Zaire is scrutinized, finding that proponents of intervention were in such conflict that the chance for founding an intervention on norms & rules & for utilizing the crisis to express a consistent rational was forfeit. A call is made to articulate the rules for justifying intervention. J. Zendejas

Explores humanitarian intervention in the Balkans from the perspective of a participant in the action. The focus is on the political ramifications of conflicts/interventions in both Bosnia & Herzegovina (Bosnia) & Serbia & Montenegro (former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). It is argued that interventions in Bosnia & Kosovo were just as much the consequences of circumstance as they were demonstrations of the international community's commitment to deal with human rights violations. Basic principles underlying humanitarian aid are examined, along with conflicts surrounding the break-up of Yugoslavia; involvement of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; & the role of the much-criticized UN Protection Force. Similarities & differences between conflicts in Kosovo & Bosnia are pointed out. It is maintained that the Balkan situation illustrates that any international response intended to relieve suffering resulting from human rights violations will lose legitimacy over time. Other lessons learned include the need to engage the UN, preserve the identity of humanitarian operations; & end granting immunity to those who commit human rights violations. J. Lindroth

"Humanitarian Intervention and International Security" published on by Oxford University Press.