This thesis will answer the question how are NATO’s humanitarian interventions justified through studying the interventions of Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. While these interventions took place...Show moreThis thesis will answer the question how are NATO’s humanitarian interventions justified through studying the interventions of Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. While these interventions took place almost a decade apart and aimed to prevent atrocities committed by autocratic regimes, they caused a significant number of civilian casualties and as a result, were subject to controversy among scholars, as well as civil societies around the world. The work of Richard Falk has highlighted that these controversies were centered around the debate regarding the moral, legal and political justifications of the interventions. Hence, they are used as the basis of the conceptual framework in this thesis. Accordingly, in order to answer the question of how humanitarian interventions are justified, a qualitative research method has been used to identify, compare and contrast NATO's justification for humanitarian interventions through moral, political and legal perspectives. The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine and the concept of responsible sovereignty have been found to be specifically prominent justifications. These serve to overcome the mandates of international humanitarian law and the United Nations Charter, which establish the legal limits of humanitarian intervention in sovereign states.Show less
In August 2010, The European Union (EU) withdrew its preferential trade agreement GSP+ from the island nation of Sri Lanka that was recovering from a long drawn civil war. The grounds for the...Show moreIn August 2010, The European Union (EU) withdrew its preferential trade agreement GSP+ from the island nation of Sri Lanka that was recovering from a long drawn civil war. The grounds for the withdrawal was cited to be Sri Lankan Government's poor human rights record in the latter stages of the war which had garnered international outcry. The ad hoc withdrawal of the scheme which was yoked to the Sri Lankan economy was damaging to the Sri Lankan economy and in particular its Ready-Made-Garment (RMG) industry that is central to povery alleviation in rural sectors of the country. In addition to the Sri Lankan Government was defiant of the EU's verdict and is believed to have made very little change. It is for this reason scholars argue that while the Human Rights concerns of the conflict were pressing, the objective of the EU withdrawal was unclear granted it achieved very little of its desired effect. Other writers have described it as 'democracy building' and 'economic terrorism' on the part of the EU. The objective of this research is to assess the effectiveness of the EU's withdrawal of GSP+ from the Sri Lankan economy and draw a conclusion on which side of the scholarly debate is more plausible.Show less
In this analysis into political and moral philosophy, the author argues that non-state actors could, under the right conditions, be considered morally and politically legitimate in carrying out a...Show moreIn this analysis into political and moral philosophy, the author argues that non-state actors could, under the right conditions, be considered morally and politically legitimate in carrying out a humanitarian intervention. This is done by assuming a minimal theory of universal human rights and then looking further into the contemporary literature surrounding humanitarian intervention as well as its history and application. In doing so, there does not seem to be moral, conceptual, or legal boundaries that would disallow such an intervention if carried out under the specified conditions. The implications of such a non-state humanitarian actor could change the way in which humanitarian interventions are carried out and remove or reduce the primacy of the state oriented nature of such interventions. Alec J. Bowie (2016) “The Legitimacy of Non-State Actors in Humanitarian Intervention”, Leiden Student RepositoryShow less
The year 2010 inaugurated a tumultuous period for a range of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Protests compelling for democratization culminated in violent clashes between rebels...Show moreThe year 2010 inaugurated a tumultuous period for a range of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Protests compelling for democratization culminated in violent clashes between rebels and authoritarian regimes across the region. In response to the escalation of violence in Libya, an alliance of countries established a no-fly zone for halting the exorbitant regime violence against the rebels and the population. Shortly after, NATO took over command. A similar intervention in Syria did not occur, in spite of the widespread human rights violations and grave human suffering. A comparison between the cases of Libya and Syria sheds light on the factors that shaped the different international community responses to the conflicts and also contributes to the greater puzzle of why states intervene in some atrocities but not in others. This study found that a prime factor impacting humanitarian intervention occurrence in Libya and Syria is the UN Security Council’s task to provide authorization within a context of disputed legality of humanitarian interventions. In addition, it is concluded that UNSC member’s positions with respect to intervening were guided by their political interests and to a lesser extent by their economic interests. Finally, the anticipated outcomes of the two humanitarian intervention scenarios influenced intervention behavior, which explains why only one intervention was conducted. All these factors are indispensable components of an inclusive explanation for the different responses to the civil wars in Libya and Syria.Show less
The Post-Cold War period has seen an increase both in civil conflict and third-party intervention. Previous research has understudied regime change that occurs in civil conflicts that are...Show moreThe Post-Cold War period has seen an increase both in civil conflict and third-party intervention. Previous research has understudied regime change that occurs in civil conflicts that are accompanied by humanitarian intervention. By means of a mixed-method analysis, this research project shows that while humanitarian intervention and regime change often occur sequentially on the macro level, there are no indications that the relationship is causal on the micro level once the process of regime change is ongoing. Regime change, it is argued, is elicited by a rapid breakdown of coercive capacities of the state that precedes the involvement of a third-party.Show less
One of the foremost controversies apparent following the 2011 intervention in Libya, was the outcome of regime change. Critics charge the facilitation of the Gadaffi regime's overthrow was not...Show moreOne of the foremost controversies apparent following the 2011 intervention in Libya, was the outcome of regime change. Critics charge the facilitation of the Gadaffi regime's overthrow was not justifiable under the United Nations mandate, not justifiable under the prominent 'Responsibility to Protect' norm and may have undermined efforts to resolve the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria. However, it is asserted that in situations where intervention is undertaken to stop atrocities committed by a government, the removal of that regime is necessary in achieving its aims. In exploring this link between humanitarian intervention and regime change, this piece analyses how the academic literature can justify the enactment of regime change in instances of intervention. This relationship otherwise lacks a sustained analysis in the academic literature. Whilst regime change is often difficult to justify in instances of humanitarian intervention, and inevitably controversial, this analysis will demonstrate that it is also often a necessity in achieving an intervention's humanitarian goals.Show less
It is interesting to look at what kind of norm the Responsibility to Protect truly is and what the effect of the norm in practice truly is. In theory a norm that creates a responsibility for the...Show moreIt is interesting to look at what kind of norm the Responsibility to Protect truly is and what the effect of the norm in practice truly is. In theory a norm that creates a responsibility for the international community to act when gross human rights violations occur sounds perfect. But, is the norm as perfect in practice as it is on paper? Is the Responsibility to Protect norm specifically created as a political instrument for states to call on so they have grounds to surpass the concept of state sovereignty? In the case that the Responsibility to Protect norm can be seen as a political instrument, is this out of humanitarian reasons or out of political motives? What are the consequences of a norm like the Responsibility to Protect in practice? These questions make clear that I’m curious about the purpose and the use of the Responsibility to Protect norm and for that I will look at different case studies. In these cases the Responsibility to Protect norm will be tested on usefulness to stop the violation of human rights. In order to establish the usefulness of the Responsibility to Protect norm I use four cases. Two prior to the official establishment of the norm, the Kosovo and Chechnya case. And, two case studies after the establishment of the Responsibility to Protect norm in order to see why the international community did or did not use the norm in these human rights crisis. These cases are: Libya (2011) and Syria (2012). I know it is very early to use Libya and Syria as case studies but they are already until this point in history very important to make my argument. In these cases the international community is involved in one way or another, but not always in the way intended by the Responsibility to Protect norm. This makes it interesting to see whether or not the Responsibility to Protect norm is just another hollow norm on paper, without any real effect in practice.Show less
