Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Despite abundant debates on humanitarian military interventions, there is yet little empirical knowledge about these operations and their effects due to a lack of systematized data. To stimulate the necessary comparative research, this article introduces a new data set on all humanitarian military interventions between 1946 and 2015. The data set outlines the interveners' proclaimed aims, mandates, and activities. Documentation of events in the target countries prior to, during, and after the interventions facilitates their evaluation. The data set consists of data matrices and structured case descriptions that document all coding decisions. A review of the spatial and temporal distribution of interveners and interventions refutes the prevalent view that the vast majority of humanitarian military interventions are conducted by Western states and that such missions subsided after the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya. The data set enables a wide range of quantitative and qualitative research. Despite its limited number of cases, it can reveal whether humanitarian military interventions generally decrease the duration and intensity of violence. Among other applications, it can help identify the conditions under which such interventions lead to an escalation or de-escalation of deadly violence.

The article offers a much-needed impulse to the debate on humanitarian military interventions, which is characterized by conceptual confusion and a lack of comparative research. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, we identify the most important definitional controversies and discuss the conceptual pros and cons of the respective positions. We illustrate how definitional choices affect comparative research using a new dataset covering all humanitarian military interventions since the Second World War. Classic definitions based on ideal types might have normative merits, but they cannot ground an empirical research programme because they vacate the universe of cases. However, military interventions for declared humanitarian purposes are here to stay, and they should be analysed instead of defined into oblivion. Thus, the definition should reflect the practice of humanitarian military interventions, not subordinate the humanitarian purpose to violations of sovereignty and international law. The definition must not be restricted to interventions reacting to death tolls that 'shock the conscience of mankind'; it must also consider interventions in the early stages of conflict. Moreover, military interventions should not be disregarded when the humanitarian motive is not exclusive or predominant.

"The international responsibility to protect and norms of international criminal justice are increasingly contested. These conflicts seem to be casting doubt on the possibilities for global governance. Are such liberal norms and rules only accepted in the political West? In order to examine the opportunities of global governance, this report investigates the influence of regional actors on the global order. When do regional security organizations contribute to fragmenting this global order and when do they strengthen it? The study finds that the acceptance of global norms and rules is primarily a matter of procedural justice. When regional actors recognize that they do not have a say in how global norms are implemented in their region, they will tend to reject these norms. The study concludes with recommendations for political practice." (author's abstract)

"Relations between Russia and the West have been in severe crisis since the annexation of the Crimea and there is a danger the situation could escalate. Was this crisis inevitable? The authors discuss explanations put forward by both sides for the current circumstances. To de-escalate the crisis, they are calling for a paradigm shift by the West and present the leitmotif for 'Plural Peace'. They show that recognising the normative other is a prerequisite for constructive coexistence and focus on the long-term transformative force of the good example. The authors conclude with suggestions as to how the concept of 'Plural Peace' could be implemented in political practice and how the West's current crisis management might be transformed to permanently settle the conflict." (author's abstract)

This book studies the justice concerns of political actors in important international regimes and international and domestic conflicts and traces their effects on peace and conflict. The book demonstrates that such justice concerns play an ambivalent role for the resolution of conflicts and maintenance of order. While arrangements that actors perceive as just will provide a good basis for peaceful relations, the pursuit of justice can create conflicts or make existing ones more difficult to resolve.