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
Through quantative analysis Siri Aas Rustad and Helga Malmin Binningsbø, in their 2012 joint study ‘A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence’, find that there is a...Show moreThrough quantative analysis Siri Aas Rustad and Helga Malmin Binningsbø, in their 2012 joint study ‘A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence’, find that there is a significant correlation between conflict recurrence and conflicts over natural resource revenue distribution. This paper takes this study and tests whether their quantative findings can be applied to two cases. The aim of this paper is to gain a greater understanding of the motivations of actors who spoil peace agreements concerning petroleum conflicts. The motivations tested are economic grievance over distribution of oil, greed displayed by belligerents wanting a greater share of wealth than they are entitled to, and political motives of actors who use a recurrence of conflict to achieve or promote their political goals. The two case studies considered are the Aceh conflict concerning the breakdown of the 2002 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and the Chechen conflict featuring the breakdown of the 1996 Khasavyurt Agreement and the peace process thereafter.Show less
External support to security sector reform (SSR) has emerged as a crucial instrument in international peacebuilding and state-building operations and is widely considered as the sine qua non of...Show moreExternal support to security sector reform (SSR) has emerged as a crucial instrument in international peacebuilding and state-building operations and is widely considered as the sine qua non of contemporary post-conflict reconstruction efforts in post-conflict or fragile states. Although SSR is considered as a core instrument of state-building and as a precondition for achieving peace and development, its record of achievement is quite limited. This thesis seeks to explain how the conventional SSR focus on state security undermines post-conflict transition and fails to enable an environment for sustainable peace and development. Based on the transition processes in Afghanistan and Timor Leste, this thesis argues that a state-centric approach to SSR is likely to be less effective in hybrid states and can even destabilise state recovery by protecting state institutions that are not embedded within society.Show less
This thesis attempts to investigate the extent to which the debate about the indivisibility principle has translated into in tandem state respect for Civil and Political rights and Social and...Show moreThis thesis attempts to investigate the extent to which the debate about the indivisibility principle has translated into in tandem state respect for Civil and Political rights and Social and Economic rights. Adapting and expanding on the ideas and methods proposed by Minkler and others, and building on the work of the CIRI data project and the SERF initiative, an empirical method is provided for the assessment of states’ de facto adhesion to the principle of indivisibility, which is enshrined in Human Rights law. Both global and country-specific longitudinal profiles of human rights respect are provided. The indivisibility thesis is tested via a series of numerical techniques. Furthermore, an empirical investigation is carried out to examine the extent to which human rights are in practice interdependent. In doing so, a bird’s-eye view analysis of states’ respect for human rights is provided. Results show that states’ practices in terms of upholding civil and political rights and fulfilling economic and social rights are neither frequently exercised, nor reveal any sort of dependence or reinforcing characteristic. In addition, although civil and political liberties are especially vulnerable, states that prioritized these rights seem just as concerned in fulfilling economic and social rights, whereas the opposite does not hold true. Finally, the pertinence and applications of the proposed methods and findings are discussed.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
