Suchergebnisse

"This volume explores the nature of civil war in the modern world and in historical perspective. Civil wars represent the principal form of armed conflict since the end of the Second World War, and certainly in the contemporary era. The nature and impact of civil wars suggests that these conflicts reflect and are also a driving force for major societal change. In this sense, Understanding Civil War: Continuity and Change in Intrastate Conflict argues that the nature of civil war is not fundamentally changing in nature. The book includes a thorough consideration of patterns and types of intrastate conflict and debates relating to the causes, impact, and 'changing nature' of war. A key focus is on the political and social driving forces of such conflict and its societal meanings, significance and consequences. The author also explores methodological and epistemological challenges related to studying and understanding intrastate war. A range of questions and debates are addressed. What is the current knowledge regarding the causes and nature of armed intrastate conflict? Is it possible to produce general, cross-national theories on civil war which have broad explanatory relevance? Is the concept of 'civil wars' empirically meaningful in an era of globalization and transnational war? Has intrastate conflict fundamentally changed in nature? Are there historical patterns in different types of intrastate conflict? What are the most interesting methodological trends and debates in the study of armed intrastate conflict? How are narratives about the causes and nature of civil wars constructed around ideas such as ethnic conflict, separatist conflict and resource conflict? This book will be of much interest to students of civil wars, intrastate conflict, security studies and IR in general"--

Intro -- Contents -- Tables and figures -- Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- Acronyms -- 1 Introduction: Understanding human trafficking -- Part I Themes -- 2 Trafficking in humans: Structural factors -- 3 Globalization and national sovereignty: From migration to trafficking -- 4 Trafficking of women for prostitution -- 5 Migrant women and the legal politics of anti-trafficking interventions -- 6 Trafficking in women: The role of transnational organized crime -- Part II Regional experiences -- 7 The fight against trafficking in human beings from the European perspective -- 8 Human trafficking in East and South-East Asia: Searching for structural factors -- 9 Human trafficking in Latin America in the context of international migration -- 10 Human trafficking in South Asia: A focus on Nepal -- 11 Trafficking in persons in the South Caucasus - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia: New challenges for transitional democracies -- Index.

UK governments have often claimed that humanitarian intervention – without the consent of the target state and if necessary without express UN Security Council authorization – is legally permissible in exceptional circumstances, a stance that is highly controversial. The UK's position is at odds with prevailing international legal doctrine, which is counterintuitive for a country that is generally committed to international law, the UN framework, and multilateralism. It is also in tension with normative developments related to human protection, such as the international 'Responsibility to Protect' principle, which established that coercive responses to human suffering must be authorized by the UN Security Council. This article explores the background to the UK's position on humanitarian intervention, and it argues that this reflects an element of continuity in the UK's foreign policy in historical perspective, as a legacy of global engagement and a sense of moral righteousness and duty. The article also considers whether the UK's position may be contributing to an evolution of the norms governing the use of force for human protection.

This article explores the response of Europe to the refugee 'crisis' since 2015 and considers if this is a reasonable test of the region's commitment to international humanitarianism and the 'Responsibility to Protect' principle (R2P). This response is explored both in terms of policy decisions and the political discourse used to frame the nature of the challenge, which weighs humanitarian obligations against the needs of 'security', 'societal cohesion' and 'burden sharing'. The article argues that the European response to the refugee crisis exposes internal contradictions and limitations in liberal humanitarianism more broadly, as well as fundamental problems with R2P even amongst those countries which champion the principle. Theoretically, the paper draws upon debates about securitisation, humanitarian norms, and liberal politics. Empirically, the paper analyses elite discourse and policy decisions within Europe, as well as UN statistical data on forced migration.

According to supporters of R2P the principle now enjoys almost universal acceptance and the remaining challenges concern operationalization and implementation. In contrast, this article argues that R2P remains controversial both as a principle and in terms of its application, and these controversies reflect broader tensions in international politics related to international order and normative authority. Diplomatic debates related to R2P suggest that rising powers are resistant to aspects of the normative 'rules of the game', and that there are fundamental disagreements regarding the relationship between human rights and international order. This can be understood as a tension between pluralist and solidarist worldviews, but also a manifestation of friction regarding control of international institutions and decision-making. Although R2P is defined narrowly, therefore, this article argues that the controversies surrounding the principle must be understood within a wider political context. In conclusion, the article offers a number of suggestions as to the future of R2P based upon this analysis.