1. Childhood, security and protection : concepts and theoretical approach -- 2. Locating children in global politics : a political sociological approach -- 3. Conceptualising child security : rights, agency, participation and protection -- 4. Power, protection and the discourse of security in Cambodia -- 5. Post-conflict governance and child protection in Cambodia -- 6. Conflict, militarization and displacement : child insecurity in Myanmar -- 7. Responding to child insecurity in Myanmar and the borderlands : the protection gap -- Conclusion : the politics of protecting children and implications for security analysis.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Over the past three decades, there has been a notable expansion in the number and remit of global norms of human protection, informing the rationale and reform of international law and institutions in significant ways. Yet, the inconsistent and selective implementation of these norms undermines their legitimacy and strength. Drawing on interviews with United Nations (UN) officials, diplomats, non-governmental organizations, and experts, this article examines the challenge of strengthening consistency in the implementation of international human protection norms. It argues that diversity in practice is a strength for their consistent implementation when understood through a broader account of the regulatory function of international norms. Dominant accounts of the regulatory function of international norms in international law (compliance) and international relations (internalization) seek consistency of norm implementation through mechanisms such as legal/institutional reform and socialization, respectively. These accounts, I argue, are strengthened by a socio-legal approach to responsive regulation that pays attention to the way that norms operate "in reality" to regulate actor behavior, identifying the generative and creative function of international norms in steering the flow of events toward desired outcomes. It then examines efforts to extend human protection norms into new territory and toward improved preventive capacity with an increased emphasis on accountability through the UN Human Rights Council. This article introduces the concept of regulatory contestation that extends analytical attention to the governance processes through which norms shape international politics and practice.
Abstract The escalation of violence by Myanmar's military forces against ethnic Rohingya populations in Rakhine State in 2017 served as a test case for Australia's commitment to R2P, and its capacity to protect populations from widespread and systematic atrocities in its own regional neighbourhood. Australia's response to the crisis in Myanmar was mixed; it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar that was instrumental in determining the extent and nature of violence committed by Myanmar's armed forces during the so-called 'clearance operations', and provided substantial humanitarian aid for affected Rohingya populations. Australia has, however, been criticised for not doing enough to pressure the government of Myanmar on the issue, for maintaining defence cooperation with Myanmar throughout the crisis, and for its reluctance to accept Rohingya refugees fleeing the violence. This article examines Australia's response to the Rohingya crisis in the areas of international, regional, and bilateral diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and defence cooperation. It asks why Australia did not take a more proactive role in confronting atrocities committed by the Myanmar government, and identifies lessons learnt and recommendations for strengthening Australia's atrocity prevention architecture that is consistent with Australia's pragmatic approach to regional assistance and its principled international advocacy.
Prevention has taken centre-stage in present discussions around both United Nations reform and the r2p implementation agenda. Contemporary humanitarian crises from Myanmar to Yemen reinforce the horrendous atrocities that children face during periods of armed conflict and mass political upheaval to which the prevention agenda is geared. This article considers the atrocity prevention dimension of r2p; it describes changes in both understanding around the dynamics of political violence and strategies for targeting civilians in contemporary conflicts over the past two decades, situates children in the broader social context of mass political violence, and identifies strategies for incorporating a child-centric lens into the existing atrocity prevention toolkit. It argues that while the children and armed conflict agenda strengthens atrocity prevention efforts in relation to children's specific experiences in violent conflict, it does not serve as an adequate proxy for a child-centric approach to atrocity prevention through both structural and targeted measures.
In recent years the UN Secretary-General has promoted mass atrocity prevention as the priority agenda for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) at the UN, redirecting debates on R2P away from military interventionism towards improved state capacity to prevent atrocity crimes and protect populations. This focus has been illustrated in the UNSG's annual reports on R2P since 2009, and the 2014 "Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes", that emphasise state institutional capacity and the identification of atrocity-risk indicators. Through a case-study of Pakistan, this article problematizes the relationship between internal security and the UN agenda on atrocity prevention to evaluate the viability of promoting atrocity prevention as currently conceived by the Office of the UNSG in high-risk contexts. It argues that an atrocity prevention agenda informed by a responsive regulation framework would be more effective in taking into account the relational dynamics of atrocity crimes. This includes accounting for the interaction between the micro-dynamics of political violence with macro-dynamics created by lengthy historical conflicts and strategic repertoires.
This article responds to the 2013 un Secretary General's (unsg) annual report on the Responsibility to Protect (r2p), titled 'State Responsibility and Prevention'. The orientation of r2p as a tool for addressing risk factors for atrocity crimes in domestic contexts indicates a conceptual deepening and widening of r2p to provide states with an atrocity prevention lens within their jurisdiction. This article examines state policies and practices of protecting civilians during communal violence in India, arguing that progress on the First Pillar of r2p necessitates a conceptual shift at both the international level and at the domestic level. The politics surrounding communal violence in India provides an important case study to question the salience of r2p norms for domestic practices of state responsibility and prevention that are currently being promoted in the unsg agenda on r2p, and considers the implications this report has for states committed to a narrow interpretation of r2p.
In recent years the UN Secretary-General has promoted mass atrocity prevention as the priority agenda for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) at the UN, redirecting debates on R2P away from military interventionism towards improved state capacity to prevent atrocity crimes and protect populations. This focus has been illustrated in the UNSG's annual reports on R2P since 2009, and the 2014 "Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes", that emphasise state institutional capacity and the identification of atrocity-risk indicators. Through a case-study of Pakistan, this article problematizes the relationship between internal security and the UN agenda on atrocity prevention to evaluate the viability of promoting atrocity prevention as currently conceived by the Office of the UNSG in high-risk contexts. It argues that an atrocity prevention agenda informed by a responsive regulation framework would be more effective in taking into ac-count the relational dynamics of atrocity crimes. This includes accounting for the interaction between the micro-dynamics of political violence with macro-dynamics created by lengthy historical conflicts and strategic repertoires.
In recent years the UN Secretary-General has promoted mass atrocity prevention as the priority agenda for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) at the UN, redirecting debates on R2P away from military interventionism towards improved state capacity to prevent atrocity crimes and protect populations. This focus has been illustrated in the UNSG's annual reports on R2P since 2009, and the 2014 "Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes", that emphasise state institutional capacity and the identification of atrocity-risk indicators. Through a case-study of Pakistan, this article problematizes the relationship between internal security and the UN agenda on atrocity prevention to evaluate the viability of promoting atrocity prevention as currently conceived by the Office of the UNSG in high-risk contexts. It argues that an atrocity prevention agenda informed by a responsive regulation framework would be more effective in taking into account the relational dynamics of atrocity crimes. This includes accounting for the interaction between the micro-dynamics of political violence with macro-dynamics created by lengthy historical conflicts and strategic repertoires.
