Libya and the future of the Responsibility to Protect - African and European perspectives
In: PRIF reports 107
In: PRIF reports 107
In: PRIF reports 86
In: Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung 48
World Affairs Online
In: Studien der Hessischen Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung 31
In: European journal of international relations, Band 23, Heft 4, S. 809-832
ISSN: 1460-3713
Persistent tensions between the international norm of state sovereignty and emerging human rights norms, including the Responsibility to Protect and the protection of civilians during international peacekeeping, raise the question of when and under what circumstances local and regional actors are more likely to respect global norms. These tensions are particularly stark in Africa. On the one hand, African states and regional organizations were among the first proponents of liberal protection norms in the non-Western world. On the other hand, many African leaders view state sovereignty as indispensable. Building on established empirical justice research in neighboring fields, this article makes an important contribution to the literature by demonstrating that African states are more likely to accept interventionist human rights norms when standards of procedural justice have been observed. The article demonstrates the relevance of procedural justice by examining the puzzle of divergent African reactions to two similar instances of regime change in Libya and the Ivory Coast that were enforced by extra-continental actors in the name of global protection norms.
World Affairs Online
World Affairs Online
In: European journal of international relations, Band 23, Heft 4, S. 809-832
ISSN: 1460-3713
Persistent tensions between the international norm of state sovereignty and emerging human rights norms, including the Responsibility to Protect and the protection of civilians during international peacekeeping, raise the question of when and under what circumstances local and regional actors are more likely to respect global norms. These tensions are particularly stark in Africa. On the one hand, African states and regional organizations were among the first proponents of liberal protection norms in the non-Western world. On the other hand, many African leaders view state sovereignty as indispensable. Building on established empirical justice research in neighboring fields, this article makes an important contribution to the literature by demonstrating that African states are more likely to accept interventionist human rights norms when standards of procedural justice have been observed. The article demonstrates the relevance of procedural justice by examining the puzzle of divergent African reactions to two similar instances of regime change in Libya and the Ivory Coast that were enforced by extra-continental actors in the name of global protection norms.
In: Cooperation and conflict: journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 369-371
ISSN: 0010-8367
In: Cooperation and conflict: journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 369-371
ISSN: 1460-3691
In: Transatlantic discord: combating terrorism and proliferation, preventing crises, S. 31-61
In: The nonproliferation review: program for nonproliferation studies, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 31-39
ISSN: 1073-6700
World Affairs Online
In: The nonproliferation review: program for nonproliferation studies, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 31-39
ISSN: 1746-1766
In: Historical Social Research, Band 47, Heft 2, S. 7-32
Dissociation from international institutions, i.e., states turning away from international cooperation and organizations, is a widespread phenomenon today. It often leads to significant tensions between the states that turn away and those that remain committed to an institution. This introduction to a forum on dissociation from international institutions reviews the state of the art and develops a framework for analyzing the impact of dissociation on relations between departing and remaining states. It centers on the hypothesis that dissociation leads to two types of conflicts between states, ideational and distributive, with ideational conflicts more likely to increase tensions between states. The article then reviews the five cases of dissocia-tion examined in the other contributions to the forum and summarizes their main individual and comparative findings. Taken together, the five cases suggest that dissociation can exacerbate broader structural conflicts between states; that how parties perceive of conflict during the dissociation process matters for its effects on interstate relations and that an emphasis on ideational conflict leads to more confrontational relations; and that domestic politics matter greatly not only for whether dissociation occurs but also for its effects on interstate relations.
In: Global governance: a review of multilateralism and international organizations, Band 25, Heft 1, S. 149-170
ISSN: 1942-6720
World Affairs Online