Suchergebnisse

Seit Beginn der Neunzigerjahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts kommt es in vielen Staaten der Welt zu kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen, mit denen massive Menschenrechtsverletzungen einhergehen. Andere Staaten oder Staatenbündnisse versuchen diese Konflikte schlimmstenfalls mit Waffengewalt zu beenden und greifen somit in die Souveränität fremder Staaten militärisch ein. Ein solches Eingreifen trägt den Titel humanitäre Intervention, da es der Beendigung der Menschenrechtsverletzungen dient.In dieser Arbeit wird die Problematik humanitärer Interventionen erörtert. Der biblische Befund zeigt, dass die Anwendung von Gegengewalt durchaus gerechtfertigt sein kann, wenn sie zur Minimierung oder Abwendung von Gewalt notwendig ist.Das kirchliche Lehramt setzt sich auch mit der Problematik des militärischen Eingreifens in die Souveränität fremder Staaten auseinander und kommt zum Schluss, dass nicht nur mehr der Verteidigungskrieg, sondern auch humanitäre Interventionen erlaubt sein können. Innerhalb der katholischen und evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands kommt es zu einem Paradigmenwechsel, wonach nicht mehr der gerechte Krieg, sondern der gerechte Friede im Mittelpunkt der friedensethischen Überlegungen steht.Die traditionellen Kriterien von der Lehre vom gerechten Krieg bilden einen nützlichen Rahmen, um zu beurteilen, inwieweit humanitäre Interventionen gerechtfertigt sein können. Aufmerksamkeit muss bei der Beurteilung solcher militärischer Eingriffe auch der Zeit danach geschenkt werden. ; Since the early ninetieth of the last century in a lot of states of the world armed conflicts have erupted which have entailed massive violations of human rights. Other states or alliances of states have tried to stop these conflicts by the use of armed force and have therefore violently infringed on the sovereignty of foreign states. Such interventions are called humanitarian interventions, because their aim is to end the violation of human rights.In this doctoral thesis the problem of humanitarian interventions is discussed in detail. Biblical exegesis demonstrates that the use of counterforce may be basically justified if it is necessary for minimizing or averting violence.The magisterium of the Catholic Church faces up to the problem of military interventions that infringe on the sovereignty of foreign states. It concludes that both a defensive war and humanitarian interventions may be permitted in certain cases. A paradigm shift has taken place both within the Catholic and the Protestant church of Germany. The ethics of war and peace no longer is focused on a "just war" but on a "just peace" instead.The traditional criteria of the just war-teaching are a helpful framework for assessing the justification of humanitarian interventions. In such an assessment special attention should be paid to the time period after the intervention. ; eingereicht von Johannes Sauseng ; Graz, Univ., Diss., 2014 ; OeBB ; (VLID)242269

In a recent paper, The Intervention Paradox, Isabelle Duyvesteyn of Utrecht University, the Netherlands, says that intervening puts target countries in an 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' situation. According to Duyvesteyn, interventions in unstable countries only make situations worse. This article discusses the paper.

The present article, written in May 2001, discusses the significance for the doctrine of humanitarian intervention of the normative signaling practices that transpired throughout the 1990s with respect to the use of military force outside of explicit authorization by UN Security Council resolutions. The first part of the article analyses the sociological and legal-theoretical dimensions of the relationship between interpretation of Security Council resolutions and the interpretive evolution of the UN Charter. Iraq and Kosovo then provide the focus for contextualizing the analysis. The article ends with an account of the interplay of the powers of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, and the role a General Assembly Declaration on Interventions for Human Security could play in providing normative baselines for interpreting the scope of Security Council resolutions concerning humanitarian crises. The piece emerged from an address given in Tokyo at was written before the events of September 11, 2001, as well as before the release of the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in December 2001.

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.

Since more than two decades the EU is establishing a common European Security and Defense and Policy.

Front Page / Table Contents / Acronyms List of Acronyms 4 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Methodology and Layout of the Dissertation 12 2 Literature Review 14 2.1 Negotiation and Mediation 14 2.2 Intrastate Wars 29 2.3 The International Context 37 3 The International Community and War 59 3.1 Geograhpy and Demography of Bosnia 59 3.2 The War in Bosnia 60 3.3 The International Community and the Bosnian Conflict 76 3.4 Analysis - Pressure and Compliance in War 117 4 Mostar and the War (1992-1994) 127 4.1 Mostar and the International Community 144 4.2 International Organizations in Mostar 166 5 Discussions and Conclusions 216 5.1 Summary (The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Mostar) 217 5.2 Negotiations 223 5.3 Interacting with the Warring Parties 236 5.4 The International Context and the Humanitarian Intervention 240 5.5 Conclusions 261 6 List of Quoted Informants 265 7 Literature 266 Lebenslauf 279 ; The dissertation deals with negotiations in the context of humanitarian interventions. It does so by testing the predictions of the two main normative, respectively prescriptive, negotiation theories in the context of the humanitarian intervention in Bosnia (1992-1995). One of the main approaches to negotiations is derived from rational choice theory and may be called the �power-based� negotiation technique as it emphasises the relative power differences between parties to a negotiation as the main determinant of negotiation outcomes. Basic negotiation tools, recommended by this school, include threats and emphasises the importance of communicating resolve to execute those threats. In contrast, the rather more psychological approach of the Harvard Negotiation School stresses the danger of escalation when threats are used. Such escalation can lead to suboptimal negotiation outcomes. This line of thought thus recommends the search for mutually advantageous solutions (win-win options), introduces the principle of fairness in the negotiation process and suggests further techniques that are supposed to avoid personal antagonisms and ...

Provided that traditional jus ad bellum principles are fulfilled, military humanitarian intervention to stop large scale violations of human rights (such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes) is widely regarded as morally permissible. In cases of "supreme humanitarian emergency", not only are the victims morally permitted to rebel, but other states are also permitted to militarily intervene. Things are different if the human rights violations in question fall short of supreme humanitarian emergency. Because of the importance of respecting political self-determination, in cases of "ordinary oppression", we normally think that rebellion might be permissible, but not military humanitarian intervention. Thus, according to the received view, the conditions for the permissibility of intervention coincide with the conditions for the permissibility of revolution in cases of supreme humanitarian emergency, but not in cases of ordinary oppression. In cases of ordinary oppression there is an asymmetry between the conditions for the permissibility of revolution and intervention (call this the Asymmetry View). Should we accept the Asymmetry View? I answer this question by outlining an account of political self-determination and by illustrating the complex role that this notion should play in discussing the morality of revolution and intervention.

The creation and functioning of world peace have always been the mission and goal of international relations, which is based on specific actions and strategies depending on the extent of the situation, but how many successes and results have been cannot always be predicted. The fight against transnational terrorism and the fight against general evil must always rightly be supported by all influential states in the world. The US intervention in Iraq is often seen with criticism and praise from various scholars and states. In our paper, we aimed to present the US intervention in Iraq based on the comparison and presentation of arguments from different studies and experts in the face of the question; was this intervention necessary or not, and was it humanitarian or aggression? We have tried to present the problem in the most scientific and argumentative way through descriptive, analytical and comparative methods, always based on scientific and factual approaches. In conclusion, we can say that based on general facts and arguments regarding the US intervention in Iraq, the goal has not been achieved correctly and that other forms could have been used to achieve the goal. The failure to find nuclear weapons inside Iraq and the failure to democratize it are two key arguments that shed light on hasty military action against Iraq.

Under the pretense that the U.S. is looking out for it's own national security, it has continuously hindered Nicaragua's chance at an authentic national democratic government of its own. Through the creation and support of almost a half-century long dictatorship that left the poor nation in shambles, as well as economic sabotage, arming and supporting the "contras" or remnant supports of the previous dictatorship, and the setting up of military installations in the region, the US has persistently interfered with Nicaragua's strive for democracy. Under the leadership of the Sandinistas, Nicaragua must uphold significant principles such as non-intervention, self-determination, collective self-defense, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the advocating of human rights and democracy to work towards the self-governance and independence they seek to achieve. Furthermore, the United States would benefit with the realization that, because of their unwanted pursuit and interventions, they have lost their own fundamental principle, which, in the first place, was responsible for its own emergence: the people's rights to self-determination.

Historically, the arguments for free trade intervention have raised to a simultaneous debate. The essay examines to what extent the political reasons have been used to counter free trade as compared to economic reasons. Some view political reasons as the sole driver to intervene, but typically political-economic are positively correlated. In fact, a country's intervention to an excessive degree is negative from business point of view. It is recommended that country's intervention should not exceed certain limit because free trade itself have positive impact on global business environment.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services throws down the gauntlet on the "most politically divisive domestic legal issue of our time," imperiling women's progress in securing reproductive freedom and power in society. The battle over abortion rights is likely to splinter an already deeply divided country. After fierce fighting in many statehouses, some legislatures will pass statutes further restricting abortion. The major battleground, however, will quickly shift to the federal courts, where plaintiffs seeking to protect procreative freedom will challenge these measures. Judges, parties, and lawyers participating in this litigation will rigorously analyze the issues of "substance" that Webster and the new state laws implicate-questions involving the Constitution, privacy, women's rights, precedent, statutory construction, medicine, science, religion, and morality. In their haste to evaluate these critical issues, they must not overlook the procedural questions and process values at stake. Indeed, if certain procedural problems receive insufficient attention, they may preclude efforts to protect reproductive rights. Issues involving intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 pose significant difficulties and typify the procedural problems that will pervade the anticipated abortion cases. Two protracted pieces of litigation that challenged restrictive abortion laws passed after Roe v. Wade illustrate the complications that may ensue.

Heinz Brahms ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 4 Z 68.247-1969,11/20

The Your COVID-19 Risk project started late March 2020 and united over a hundred volunteer experts from all over the world to create an online tool to help people to obtain a risk estimate. The project was designed to apply scientific insights to optimize the quality of the tool and enable efficient iteration over versions to improve the tool over time. The tool includes a number of questions that enable improving the tool over time, the answers to which can also inform intervention development by governments or health agencies. This document provides recommendations for interventions in the Netherlands.

In both academic and policy circles international interventions tend to mean 'military' interventions and debates tend to focus on whether such interventions are 'good' or 'bad' in general. This article aims to open up scholarly engagement on the topic of the thorny reality of interventions in different contexts by reconceptualising international interventions as 'security interventions.' The article draws attention to the ambiguous meaning of 'security' as both an objective (i.e. safety) as well as a practice (military forces, police, intelligence agencies and their tactics), something that is reflected in the different approaches to be gleaned from the security studies literature. From this ambiguity, it derives two interlinked concepts: 'security culture' and 'security gap,' as analytical tools to grasp the complexity of international interventions. The concept of 'security culture' captures specific combinations of objectives and practices. The concept of 'security gap' captures the particular relationship or the distinct kind of 'mismatch' between objectives and practices as it occurs in a 'security culture.' This reading of international interventions through the concept of 'security culture' and the interlinked analytical tool 'security gap' allows an analysis and understanding that goes beyond simplistic assumptions both about traditional military capabilities and the role of the 'international community' as a unitary actor.

In einem der letzten Blogposts hat Martin Haase "humanitäre Interventionen" als Neusprech bezeichnet, da sie eigentlich "Krieg" meinen. Dem wird in der Regel entgegen gehalten, dass diese Subdifferenzierung sich nicht auf die Praxis des Krieges, des "Bombenwerfens, Tötens und Besetzens" bezieht, sondern auf die Kriegsmotivation. Es handelt sich nicht um einen Angriffkrieg um Ölfelder zu erobern, sondern um einen Krieg um Genoziden Einhalt zu gebieten. Die Bezeichnung "humanitäre Interventionen" hat nur den Anspruch eine Motivlage zu benennen, nicht die Praxis des Kriegführens selbst. Tom Koenigs reagierte in einem Twitter-Kommentar:.