Suchergebnisse

Forty million civilians were killed during wars between states and approximately 240 million civilians were murdered by their own governments during the 1900s. More than ever before, civilians are being illegally targeted by governments and rebel groups during armed conflict [6]. So, humanitarian intervention is created and is justified because the international community has a moral duty to protect common humanity and because there is a legal obligation, codified in international law, for states to intervene against large scale human rights abuses.

Humanitarianism as a concept is arguably as old as humanity itself. To help one's fellow man in their time of need irrespective of race, religion, caste, or creed has been preached by innumerable ideologies. Despite being such a universally understood concept, in recent decades humanitarianism, has faced increased conflation with 'humanitarian intervention'. This paper seeks to discern the differences between humanitarianism and humanitarian intervention and will do so by examining the ideological and foundational differences between the two concepts. The two concepts despite sounding similar are fundamentally different; they involve different actors and have different objectives. This paper will distinguish between state and non- state actors and the different humanitarian roles, values, and interests they have. This paper will posit that states that engage in military interventions are not humanitarians and that the conflation of such actions with those of impartial non-state actors are highly damaging to the ideals and values of humanitarianism.

The following essay describes the idea of humanitarian intervention in relation to civil-military cooperation. In the first part it presents the definition of the concept, its characteristics as well as the brief history of its development. Second part describes the issues of legality and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Third part concentrates on relations between civil and military actors, co-operation of their tasks based on the example of CIMIC, as well as the challenges remaining to make their coexistence successful. For better presentation of the complexity of the issue, in the last part are presented lessons learned from humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. Article ends with short presentation of future prospect for improvement of civil-military cooperation in humanitarian interventions.

The intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999 aroused controversy at the time and still provokes questions about the legality of the action, its precedential effect, and procedures for developing new international law. The participants faced a legal and moral dilemma between international law prohibitions on the use of force and the goal of preventing or stopping widespread grave violations of international human rights. This commentary seeks to chart a course for the future in light of the current legal and moral environment. Many individuals on all sides of the Kosovo crisis maintained the highest standards of law and morality. Regrettably, others, particularly political leaders, fell short of their moral or legal obligations or both. Of the latter, the leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) headed by Slobodan Milosevic stands out. The FRY committed grave international crimes against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. However, both the ethnic Albanians and the Serbs in Kosovo engaged in aggressive and brutal actions against each other and both were at fault, legally and morally. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has also committed terrorist and other brutal acts against the Yugoslav Serbs and the FRY forces. As for the United Nations, though perhaps not morally at fault, it did not address the Kosovo problem in a timely and effective manner, as is its responsibility. Indisputably, the NATO intervention through its bombing campaign violated the U.N. Charter and international law. As a result, the intervention risked destabilizing the international rule of law that prohibits a state or group of states from intervening by the use of force in another state, absent authorization by the U.N. Security Council or a situation of self-defense. The NATO actions, regardless of how well-intentioned, constitute an unfortunate precedent for states to use force to suppress the commission of international crimes in other states--grounds that easily can be and ...

Humanitarianism as a concept is arguably as old as humanity itself. To help one's fellow man in their time of need irrespective of race, religion, caste, or creed has been preached by innumerable ideologies. Despite being such a universally understood concept, in recent decades humanitarianism, has faced increased conflation with 'humanitarian intervention'. This paper seeks to discern the differences between humanitarianism and humanitarian intervention and will do so by examining the ideological and foundational differences between the two concepts. The two concepts despite sounding similar are fundamentally different; they involve different actors and have different objectives. This paper will distinguish between state and non- state actors and the different humanitarian roles, values, and interests they have. This paper will posit that states that engage in military interventions are not humanitarians and that the conflation of such actions with those of impartial non-state actors are highly damaging to the ideals and values of humanitarianism.

The concept of humanitarian intervention has been around for centuries but came to particular prominence in the mid-1990s on foot of Genocides in Rwanda and at Srebrenica, Bosnia. The shocking brutality and scale of these events and the steadfast failure of the international community to defend the victims propelled the issue of humanitarian intervention to the centre of international relations discourse and fostered a growing conviction that atrocities ought to 'never again' be allowed to proceed unhindered. Enhanced support for humanitarian intervention was reflected in the short-term in the form of interventions in Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone and in the articulation of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The dawn of the twenty-first century, thus, promised to herald a new era in which humanitarian intervention would be undertaken in a more consistent and principled manner than ever before. Such lofty expectations have quickly receded, however, and when it has come to confronting large-scale crises and taking effective remedial action – in Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur, Syria, Yemen, and Myanmar – the option of putting force to work in defence of afflicted populations has, as before, been eschewed. Whereas the prospect of intervention has continued to be stymied by the age-old impediment of apathy, engagement has also been considerably constrained by a newfound antipathy towards the idea of armed rescue itself. If previously, forcible intercession had been considered a laudable notion constrained by inertia, self-interest, and concerns about legality, in the twenty-first century it has increasingly come to be seen as flawed in its own right. Such has been the disillusionment with the concept that it has scarcely been mooted as a possible solution to recent crises in Yemen and Myanmar.In this thesis, I argue that the terminology of 'humanitarian intervention' has played a key role in the erosion of support for armed rescue. I contend that the singular terminology of 'humanitarian intervention' has come to be used to denote several different models of action and that these models have become confused by virtue of semantic association. I argue, in particular, that the 'classical' model of humanitarian intervention, concerned with interceding in major atrocities, has come to be conflated with various 'contemporary' models of humanitarian intervention. In this way, classical humanitarian intervention has come to be tarnished by the failings and divisiveness of interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Considering the need to differentiate classical humanitarian intervention as a unique concept, and responding, moreover, to the opposition of the humanitarian sector to the association of the word 'humanitarian' with military endeavour, I propose that a new name be coined to delineate the classical idea. I, thus, introduce 'atrocity suppression' and articulate the key benefits that will accrue from its adoption.

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.

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.

Approval from the United Nations or NATO appears to have become a necessary condition for US humanitarian military intervention. Conventional explanations emphasizing the pull of legitimacy norms cannot fully account for this given that US policymakers vary considerably in their attachment to multilateralism. This article argues that America's military leaders, who are consistently skeptical about humanitarian intervention and tend to emphasize its costs, play a central role in making multilateral approval necessary. As long as the top-ranking generals express strong reservations about intervention and no clear threat to US national security exists, they can veto the use of force. In such circumstances, even heavyweight "humanitarian hawks" among the civilian leadership, who initially may have wanted to bypass multilateral bodies to maximize US freedom of action, can be expected to recognize the need for UN or NATO approval—if only as a means of mollifying the generals by reassuring them about the prospect of sustained multilateral burden sharing. Two case studies drawing on interviews with senior civilian and military officials illustrate and probe the plausibility of the argument. ; Research on this article was supported by a fellowship in foreign policy that the author held at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1036626 ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Taylor & Franics via http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1036626

As part of a roundtable on "Balancing Legal Norms, Moral Values, and National Interests," this essay presents a Christian view of how to think coherently about the relationships between those three elements. Christian monotheism entails the view that there is a given moral order or "natural law," which comprises basic human goods (or universally objective values) and moral rules for defending and promoting them. This natural law precedes all human, positive law. It follows that, while the authority of positive international law is important for the maintenance of the good of social order, it is still penultimate, since it can be trumped by natural law. Moreover, international law's authority is weaker than that of national law, because controversy over its sources gives greater scope for the interpreter's moral and political prejudices to shape its construal. Since the interpretation of international law is subject to diverse construals, occasions arise when its authority is invoked to shield the perpetration of grave injustice. In such circumstances, an appeal to natural law could supply moral justification for humanitarian military intervention, even when it violates the letter of international law. Humanitarian intervention, however, is often criticized for being motivated by national interests. A Christian view that follows Thomas Aquinas, however, does not regard national interests as immoral per se, but recognizes that self-interest can be legitimate, and that a national government has a moral responsibility to promote the legitimate interests of its people.

The current mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in Darfur has highlighted, the international community lacks both the willingness to undertake humanitarian intervention and the ability to do so legitimately. This article considers a cosmopolitan solution to these problems: the creation of a standing army for the United Nations. There have been a number of proposals for such a force, including many recently. However, they contain two central flaws: the force proposed would be, firstly, too small and, secondly, too dependent on major states. Accordingly, I argue that, to be a substantial improvement on the current situation, such a force would need to be, firstly, much larger and, secondly, in the hands of cosmopolitan democratic institutions. This two-part solution would solve the problems faced by current interveners, but is unlikely to be realised soon. Accordingly, I argue that our immediate efforts should instead be concentrated on improving regional organisations??? ability to intervene.

The thesis discusses the controversy regarding how humanitarian intervention often impacts the sovereignty of a country. The dispute is that humanitarian intervention clearly threatens and challenges sovereignty, non intervention and non use of force principles. On the other hand, some politicians and analysts argue that sovereign states have a responsibility towards their population, thus the question which should be evoked here is whether governments should be allowed to carry out genocide and mass killings without external interference in order to maintain their sovereignty? In addition the thesis discusses the changes that the notion of sovereignty has gone through over the past years. International law and UN charter do not authorize humanitarian intervention unless there is a threat to international peace and security or in self defense against an invader. Even in these situations an authorization from the UN Security Council would be required. So how can we explain and justify "humanitarian intervention". Is Humanitarian intervention dominated by political concerns and strategic interests? In this regards are intervention fair and consistent? (Examples of the 1990's conflicts) The case study used will be the case of Kosovo, where NATO intervened in the ethnic conflict that occurred in Kosovo between the Belgrade government and Kosovo Albanians. NATO's involvement has set a precedent in the use of force against a sovereign country. The background on the Kosovo's history focusing on the roots of conflict provides us with a better understanding of the reasons for the ethnic conflict. NATO has referred to the military intervention as having a humanitarian aspect in the context of saving the Kosovars from the brutality of the Belgrade forces and also their role in delivering humanitarian aid. Having said the above, the question remains whether NA TO' s intervention satisfies the principles of ''just war" tradition? Are human rights, self determination and democracy solid grounds for waging a war against a sovereign state? Should the NATO have been silent against the atrocities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect to the customary international law, and the Security Council? Does the Security Council has any responsibility in protecting the world populations and in ensuring international peace and security? Another important aspect to consider is the implications of the NATO's air strikes on the world order. Was NATO's intervention legal, and was it moral? Based on the above explanation a new framework of military intervention was introduced to the world which also encompasses humanitarian aspects. This leads to the necessity of examining the principles of Humanitarian aid, in order to determine whether the aid delivered in Kosovo was consistent with the principles of humanitarian aid considering that NATO was a warring party. Therefore I will also discuss briefly the role of humanitarian aid agencies m providing aid and how it can be improved.

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality. These rights are expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties and customary international law and by national legal frameworks. The internationalization of human rights has been increasingly recognized. International law traditionally considered relation between a state and its citizens to be a domestic affair, falling under the principle of state sovereignty. Individuals were objects of state action, but not international subjects. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.UDHR is widely recognized by almost every country of the world. With this wide recognition, conflict emerged between the rights of states i. e. soveregnity and rights of the people i.e. human rights. In the post-Cold War era, the recognition of the linkage between violations of human rights and international peace and security has opened the room for humanitarian intervention in international relations. Humanitarian intervention may be defined as: Forcible action by states to prevent or to end gross violations of human rights on behalf of people other than their own nationals, through the use of armed force without the consent of the target government and with or without UN authorization. In the present paper attempt has been made to examine the concept of human right, their violation and humanitarian intervention to stop their violation.

In this article author analyzed the notion of humanitarian intervention and its relation to the notion of the state sovereignty. Intervention into domestic affairs of one state for humanitarian purposes represents one of the most complex legal and political issues in modern international relations. There is no doubt that a drastic breach of human rights, the genocide and racial, national and religious discrimination of large proportions make for a necessary intervention of international community, that implies the violation of sovereignty of the state where the drastic crimes in question have occurred. However, the hitherto practice has shown that very often the humanitarian purposes have been used as a pretext for the intervention of completely different objectives often directly contrasted to the humanitarian causes itself, therefore putting the whole concept of humanitarian intervention under suspicion. In the article there are also presented several characteristic examples by which the author tried to clarify the notion of humanitarian intervention. ; U ovom radu razmatran je pojam humanitarna intervencija i njegov odnos prema pojmu državnog suvereniteta. Intervencija u unutrašnje stvari jedne zemlje iz humanitarnih razloga predstavlja jedno od najsloženijih pravnih i političkih pitanja savremenih odnosa u međunarodnoj zajednici. Nema sumnje da teško kršenje ljudskih prava, genocid, rasna, nacionalna i verska diskriminacija većih razmera, čine neophodnom intervenciju međunarodne zajednice, koje podrazumeva narušavanje suvereniteta države u kojoj dolazi do tako teških zloupotreba. Međutim, dosadašnja praksa pokazuje da su humanitarni razlozi često korišćeni kao izgovor za intervenciju koja je imala potpuno drugačije ciljeve, često direktno suprotstavljanje razlozima humanosti, što ceo koncept humanitarnih intervencija stavlja pod ozbiljnu sumnju. U radu je navedeno i nekoliko karakterističnih primera kroz koje se pokušava osvetliti pojam humanitarne intervencije.

Invoking memories and imagery from the Holocaust and other German atrocities during World War II, many contemporary commentators and politicians believe that the international community has an affirmative obligation to deter and incapacitate perpetrators of humanitarian atrocities. Today, the received wisdom is that a legalistic approach, which combines humanitarian interventions with international criminal prosecutions targeting perpetrators, will help realize the post-World War II vision of making atrocities a crime of the past. This Article argues, in contrast, that humanitarian interventions are often likely to create unintended, and sometimes perverse, incentives among both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities. The problem is that when the international community intervenes in the civil wars or insurrections where most humanitarian atrocities take place, its decision is partially endogenous or interdependent with that of the combatants; humanitarian interventions both influence and are influenced by the decisions of the victims and perpetrators of atrocities. Herein lies the paradox: because humanitarian interventions tend to increase the chance that rebel or victim group leaders are going to achieve their preferred political objectives, such leaders might have an incentive to engage in the kinds of provocative actions that make atrocities against their followers more likely in the first place. More specifically, the prospect of humanitarian intervention often increases the level of uncertainty about the distribution of costs and resolve between the combatants. In turn, such uncertainty amplifies the possibility of divergent expectations between the dominant and rebel group regarding the outcome of a civil war. At bottom, the prospect of humanitarian intervention might sometimes increase the risks of genocidal violence. This Article turns to insights from the domestic framework of torts and criminal law to elaborate upon the theoretical framework that motivates this perverse dynamic, provides some ...