Suchergebnisse

On April 25, 2013, UN's Security Council established a 12,600-strong peacekeeping force for Mali. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) is to take over and continue the security and stabilization task that the French-led military operation in cooperation with UN's African-led International Support Mission to Mali, AFISMA, initiated in January 2013. The aim of this report is to present a number of long- and short-term perspectives for the recently initiated peace- and state-building process in Mali by focusing on the historical, structural and political causes of the crisis in Mali. Understanding these causes and handling their derived conflict potentials provide a minimum of prerequisites for establishing long-term peace. The report is structured according to four intertwined conflict potentials: Mali's fragile state, the status and background of the Tuareg rebellion, the organized crime and the regional cooperation. .

11. september-angrepene og USAs svar utfordret folkerettens regler. Basert på et argument om selvforsvar, lanserte Bush-administrasjonen en global krig mot terrorisme, med fangeleirer, bruk av tortur og utenomrettslige henrettelser. Essayet gir en oversikt over tre folkerettslige hovedproblemstillinger som oppsto i årene etter 2001. Folkerettens regimer om samarbeid for å motarbeide terror var for svake, FN-pakten gav lite klare regler om staters selvforsvarsrett mot ikke-statlige aktører på fremmed jord, og angrepene utfordret folkerettens todeling mellom krig og rettshåndhevelse (humanitærrett og menneskerettigheter). Essayet gjør opp status for hvordan folkeretten utviklet seg på disse områdene etter 2001, og tar stilling til om dette gir grunnlag for å betegne 11. september som et vannskille i folkeretten.
Abstract in English:International Law and 9/11 – a Watershed?The 9/11 attacks and the US global response was a challenge to international law. Based on an argument of self-defense, the Bush-administration launched a global war on terror, established prison-camps, opened up for torture and engaged in targeted killings. The essay provides an overview of the main challenges that arose after 9/11 from the perspective of international law. The international regime for prevention of terrorism was weak, it was unclear to what extent the UN Charter provided states with an independent right to self-defense against non-state actors in foreign states, and the attacks challenged the dichotomy between war and crime (humanitarian law and human rights). The essay analyses how these areas of international law have evolved after 2001 and concludes by assessing whether 9/11 can be deemed a watershed in the development of international law.

Folkemordet i Srebrenica i juli 1995 opprørte en hel verden. Siden 1992, da krigen brøt ut, hadde Bosnia-Hercegovina vært under internasjonalt oppsyn. Artikkelen drøfter hvordan folkemord og grove krigsforbrytelser kunne foregå i årevis uten å bli stanset. Fokus er på den rolle de internasjonale faktorene spilte – FN, EU, Nato og stormaktene. Hvorfor var det så stor motstand mot bruk av makt? Delvis kan det ha vært på grunn av manglende forståelse av hva som skjedde, en oppfatning av at Balkan var preget av århundregammelt hat. Noen vestlige land hadde sine egne interesser i området. For vestlige politikere var det enkleste ikke å gjøre noe. FN sendte fredsbevarende styrker til et land i krig, noe som var katastrofalt for styrkene selv og for FNs prestisje. De tiltakene som ble satt i verk, som Sikkerhetsrådets resolusjoner, økonomiske sanksjoner, våpenembargo, FN-sikrede områder og flyforbud, førte ikke til at krigshandlingene avtok. Også mange norske politikere var sterkt imot militær inngripen. Den serbiske hæren var for sterk, en militær løsning var ikke mulig. Dette viste seg å være feil. Folkemordet i Srebrenica fikk FN og Nato til å gå inn for maktbruk i september 1995. En begrenset militær aksjon var nok til å få slutt på krigen, og reelle fredsforhandlinger kunne begynne.
Abstract in English: Srebrenica 25 Years After – How Could the Genocide Happen?
The genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995 shocked the world. Since 1992, when the war broke out, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been supervised by the international community. The article discusses why genocide and crimes against humanity could happen without being stopped. Focus is on the role of the relevant international participants, the UN, the EU, NATO and the great powers. Why was there a strong opposition against use of force? It was partly due to weak understanding of what was going on, a concept of the Balkans as a region of inherent centuries-old hatred. Some Western states had their own interests in the region. For Western politicians the easiest way was to do nothing. The UN sent peacekeepers to a country at war, which turned out to be a catastrophe for the peacekeepers and for the prestige of the UN. Measures like Security Council resolutions, economic sanctions, arms embargo, safe havens and no-fly zones did not work. Many Norwegian politicians were strongly opposed to military intervention. The Serbian army was too strong, a military solution was not possible. This turned out to be wrong. The genocide in Srebrenica triggered the use of force by the UN and NATO in September 1995. A limited military action was enough to end the war, after which real peace talks could start.