ChapterPDF Available

Effect of Cases on the Rivalry Between National Sovereignty and Intervention

Authors:

Abstract

Humanitarian Intervention (HI) is one of the last decade’s outstanding concepts, and it has raised controversies, both when it happens and when it does not. With the end of the Cold War, politicians and academics have started to become interested in matters outside of the two superpowers’ competition. The international community has started to deal with issues that have previously been of low importance. The concept of HI is also among the issues that have started to be discussed more after the Cold War. It has emerged from this question: “Do human rights violations in a state concern other states?” And it refers to military intervention by a third country, group of countries, or international organization to the internal affairs of a country with human rights violations with or without consent of that country. As countries intervened for humanitarian purposes, the discussions on HI have become fiercer and sharper. As a result of these discussions, several opposing views have emerged, such as intervention versus sovereignty, intervention versus nonintervention, or human rights versus international order. Although it has different names, this debate is essentially between those who think serious human rights violations should require intervention and those who think they should not interfere with domestic affairs.
Trends and
Transformations in
World Politics
Trends and
Transformations
in World Politics
Edited by Özgür Tüfekçi and Rahman Dağ
LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham Boulder New York London
Published by Lexington Books
An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com
86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE
Copyright © 2022 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any elec-
tronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without
written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages
in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Tüfekçi, Özgür, editor. | Dag, Rahman, editor.
Title: Trends and transformations in world politics / edited by Özgür
Tfeki and Rahman Da.
Description: Lanham: Lexington Books, [2022] | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021062024 (print) | LCCN 2021062025 (ebook) | ISBN
9781793650238 (cloth) | ISBN 9781793650245 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: International relations—Political aspects. | International
relations—Economic aspects. | Geopolitics.
Classification: LCC JZ1242 .T75 2022 (print) | LCC JZ1242 (ebook) | DDC
327.101—dc23/eng/20220204
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021062024
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021062025
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
v
Contents
Introduction 1
Rahman Dağ and Özgür Tüfekçi
PART I 27
Chapter One: From Stasis to Change: The Structural Context of the
Second Cold War 29
Richard Sakwa
Chapter Two: NATO—The Urgent Need of Adaptation (Again)
in a Changing World: Revitalization of Political Dimension,
Southern Flank, and China Factor 47
Luis Tomé
Chapter Three: Effect of Cases on the Rivalry Between National
Sovereignty and Intervention 81
Ekrem Ok & Özgür Tüfekçi
Chapter Four: The Bear has Taken the Honey: Predictability of
Putin’s Russia 99
Sónia Sénica
Chapter Five: How Eurasian Integration of China’s Belt and Road
Initiative Defends a Multipolar World Order 117
Andrew K P LEUNG
Chapter Six: Whither Global Governance? An Approach to the
World Politics 137
Özgür Tüfekçi and Rahman Dağ
vi C o n t e n t s
PART II 151
Chapter Seven: Trends and Transformation in world Politics
through the Eyes of the Leading IR Scholars 153
Rahman Dağ and Özgür Tüfekçi
Conclusion 269
Rahman Dağ and Özgür Tüfekçi
About the Editors and Contributors 281
81
Chapter Three
Effect of Cases on the
Rivalry Between National
Sovereignty and Intervention
Ekrem Ok & Özgür Tüfekçi
INTRODUCTION
Humanitarian Intervention (HI) is one of the last decade’s outstanding con-
cepts, and it has raised controversies, both when it happens and when it does
not. With the end of the Cold War, politicians and academics have started to
become interested in matters outside of the two superpowers’ competition.
The international community has started to deal with issues that have previ-
ously been of low importance. The concept of HI is also among the issues
that have started to be discussed more after the Cold War. It has emerged from
this question: “Do human rights violations in a state concern other states?”
And it refers to military intervention by a third country, group of countries,
or international organization to the internal affairs of a country with human
rights violations with or without consent of that country.
As countries intervened for humanitarian purposes, the discussions on HI
have become fiercer and sharper. As a result of these discussions, several
opposing views have emerged, such as intervention versus sovereignty, inter-
vention versus nonintervention, or human rights versus international order.
Although it has different names, this debate is essentially between those who
think serious human rights violations should require intervention and those
who think they should not interfere with domestic affairs. In this study, we
Effect of Cases on the Rivalry Between National Sovereignty and Intervention 95
humanitarian concerns to conceal their interests. In other words, the problem
of abuse harms confidence in the concept of HI. The support for noninterven-
tionism, which started to rise with the 2003 Iraq intervention, reached its peak
after the 2011 Libya intervention. At this stage, the question arises regarding
whether the HI concept could increase in popularity again. We think that the
concept of HI may rise again because the moral questions of today, which are
the revealer of HI, are still valid and robust. Nevertheless, in order to rise, HI
first needs a meticulous codification to handle the current problems.
REFERENCES
Ayoob, M., (2002). “Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty,” The
International Journal of Human Rights, 6(1), 81–102, https: / /doi .org /10 .1080
/714003751 .
Barack Obama: All US troops to leave Iraq in 2011,” BBC News, October 21, 2011,
https: / /www .bbc .com /news /world-us -canada -15410154 .
Barrie, D., (2012). “Libya’s Lessons: The Air Campaign,” Survival, 54(6), 57–65,
https: / /doi .org /10 .1080 /00396338 .2012 .749629 .
Bellamy, A. J., (2005). “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in
Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq,” Ethics and International Affairs,
19(2), 31–54. https: / /doi.org /10 .1111 /j .1747 -7093 .2005 .tb00499 .x .
Bellamy, A. J., and Wheeler, N. J., (2014). “Humanitarian Intervention in World
Politics,” in J. Baylis, P. Owens, and S. Smith, eds., The Globalization of World
Politics, 479–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chopra, J., and Weiss, T. G., (1992). “Sovereignty is No Longer Sacrosanct:
Codifying Humanitarian Intervention,” Ethics & International Affairs, 6, 95–117,
https: / /doi.org /10 .1111 /j .1747 -7093 .1992 .tb00545 .x
Christopher, P., (1996). “Humanitarian Interventions and the Limits of Sovereignty,”
Public Affairs Quarterly, 10(2), 103–19.
Clark, D., “Iraq Has Wrecked Our Case For Humanitarian Wars,” The Guardian,
August 12, 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2021, from https: / /www.theguardian .com /
politics /2003 /aug /12 /iraq .iraq1 .
Cockayne, J., and Malone, D., (2006). “Creeping Unilateralism: How Operation
Provide Comfort and the No-Fly Zones in 1991 and 1992 Paved the Way for the
Iraq Crisis of 2003,” Security Dialogue, 37(1), 123–141, https: / /doi .org /10 .1177
/0967010606064138 .
Cronogue, G., (2012). “Responsibility to Protect: Syria the Law, Politics, and Future
of Humanitarian Intervention Post-Libya,” Journal of International Humanitarian
Legal Studies, 3(1), 124–59, https: / /doi.org /10 .1163 /18781527 -00301004 .
Davidovic, J., (2008). “Are Humanitarian Military Interventions Obligatory?”
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(2), 134–44, https: / /doi .org /10 .1111 /j .1468 -5930
.2008 .00393 .x .
96 Chapter Three
Duke, S., (1994). “The State and Human Rights: Sovereignty Versus Humanitarian
Intervention,” International Relations, 12(2), 25–48, https: / /doi .org /10 .1177
/004711789401200203 .
Evans, G., (2004). “When is It Right to Fight?” Survival, 46(3), 59–81, https: / /doi .org
/10 .1080 /00396330412331343733 .
Fine, R., (2007). Cosmopolitanism (London and New York: Routledge).
Glennon, M. J., (1999). “The New Interventionism: The Search for a Just International
Law,” Foreign Affairs, 78(3), 2, https: / /doi .org /10 .2307 /20049274 .
Haulman, D. L., (1991). “Crisis in Iraq: Operation Provide Comfort,” in A. T.
Warnock, ed., Short of War: Major USAF Contingency Operations, 19471997,
179–88. Air Force History and Museums Program in Association with Air
University Press.
Hehir, A., (2010). Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction (London: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Hehir, A., (2013). “Introduction: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect,” in A. Hehir
and R. W. Murray, eds., Libya, the Responsibility to Protect and the Future of
Humanitarian Intervention, 1–14 (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Hehir, J. B., (1998). Military Intervention and National Sovereignty. In J. Moore, ed.,
Hard Choices, Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention, 29–53, https: / /doi.
org /10 .2307 /20049287 .
Iraq Body Count. (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https: / /www .iraqbodycount
.org /database /
Iraq Prison Abuse ‘Widespread,’“ BBC News, May 29, 2004, http: / /news .bbc .co .uk
/2 /hi /middle_east /3759923 .stm .
Iraqi Children Abused in Military Prison,” The Age, May 8, 2004, https: / /www .theage
.com .au /national /iraqi -children -abused -in -military -prison -20040508 -gdxtbd .html .
Kuperman, A. J., (2013a). “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing
NATO’s Libya Campaign,” International Security, 38(1), 105–136, https: / /doi.org
/10 .1162 /ISEC .
Kuperman, A. J., (2013b). “NATO’s Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success?”
in A. Hehir and R. W. Murray, eds., Libya, the Responsibility to Protect and the
Future of Humanitarian Intervention, 191–221 (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Kurth, J., (2006). “Humanitarian Intervention After Iraq: Legal Ideals vs Military
Realities,” Orbis, 50(1), 87–101.
McQueen, C., (2005). “Humanitarian Intervention and Safety Zones,” in Humanitarian
Intervention and Safety Zones (London: Palgrave Macmillan), https: / /doi.org
/10.1057 /9780230554979 .
Mirza, N., (2020). “The (Il)Legality of Humanitarian Intervention,” Amsterdam Law
Forum, 12(1).
Osley, R., “Tony Blair Apologises for ‘Mistakes’ Over Iraq War and Admits ‘Elements
of Truth’ to View That Invasion Helped Rise of ISIS,” The Independent, October
24, 2015, https: / /www .independent .co .uk /news /people /tony -blair -apologises -for
-mistakes -over -iraq -war -and -admits -elements -of -truth -to -view -that -invasion
-helped -rise -of -isis -a6707776 .html .
Effect of Cases on the Rivalry Between National Sovereignty and Intervention 97
Roth, K., (2006). “Was the Iraq War a Humanitarian Intervention?” Journal of
Military Ethics, 5(2), 84–92, https: / /doi .org /10 .1080 /15027570600711864 .
Rudd, G. W., (2004). Humanitarian Intervention: Assisting the Iraqi Kurds in
Operation Provide Comfort, 1991 (Arlington: United States Department of the
Army).
Shen, J., (2001). “The Non-Intervention Principle and Humanitarian Interventions
Under International Law,” International Legal Theory, 7(1), 1–32.
Tesón, F. R., (1996). “Collective Humanitarian Intervention,” Michigan Journal of
International Law, 17(2), 323–71.
Tesón, F. R., (2005). “Ending Tyranny in Iraq,” Ethics and International Affairs,
19(2), 1–20, https: / /doi.org /10 .1111 /j .1747 -7093 .2005 .tb00496 .x .
Tharoor, S., and Daws, S., (2001). “Humanitarian Intervention: Getting Past the
Reefs,” World Policy Journal, 18(2), 21–30, http: / /www .jstor .org /stable /40209743 .
Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq,” Human Rights
Watch, December 11, 2003, https: / /www .hrw .org /report /2003 /12 /11 /target /conduct
-war -and -civilian -casualties -iraq .
United Nations (1945). Charter of the United Nations, available at https: / /www .un
.org /en /sections /un -charter /un -charter -full -text / .
United Nations Security Council (1991). Resolution 688, http: / /unscr .com /en /
resolutions /doc /688 .
United Nations Security Council (2011a). Resolution 1970, https: / /doi .org /10 .1002
/0471686786 .ebd0195 .
United Nations Security Council (2011b). Resolution 1973, https: / /doi .org /10 .1163 /ej
.9789004177574 .i -488 .107 .
Walling, C. B., (2015). “Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian
Intervention,” Human Rights Quarterly, 37(2), 383–413, https: / /doi.org /10 .1353 /
hrq .2015 .0034 .
War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention,” Human Rights Watch, January
25, 2004, https: / /www .hrw .org /news /2004 /01 /25 /war -iraq -not -humanitarian
-intervention .
Weiss, T. G., (1994). “Triage: Humanitarian Interventions in a New Era,” World
Policy Journal, 11(1), 59–69.
Weiss, T. G., (2000). “The Politics of Humanitarian Ideas,” Security Dialogue, 31(1),
11–23.
Wheeler, N. J., (2000). Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International
Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
NOTES
1. The Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and
October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster. The treaties ended
the Thirty Years’ War and the Eighty Years’ War.
281
About the Editors and Contributors
Özgür Tüfekçi is associate professor of international relations at Karadeniz
Technical University in Turkey. He is also founder and director-general of
CESRAN International, a UK-based think tank (www.cesran.org). He holds a
master’s degree in International Studies from the University of Sheffield and
a PhD in Sociology and International Relations from Coventry University.
His primary research interests are (Turkish) Eurasianism, nation-building,
theories of nationalism, geopolitical studies, rising powers, and regionalism.
He published a monograph titled The Foreign Policy of Modern Turkey:
Power and the Ideology of Eurasianism (2017) and co-edited Domestic
and Regional Uncertainties in the New Turkey (2017), Eurasian Politics
and Society: Issues and Challenges (2017), and Politics of Conflict and
Cooperation in Eurasia (2018). He is also the editor in chief of The Rest:
Journal of Politics and Development.
Rahman Dağ is associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public
Administration at Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University. He obtained his
bachelor’s degree from Istanbul Yeditepe University and then his master’s
degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of
London. He was awarded a doctorate of philosophy from the University of
Exeter’s Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies. The core point of his thesis
is the ideological roots of pro-Kurdish and pro-Islamist political movements
determining the perceptions between them. In addition, he is now acting as
head of the CESRAN International Turkey desk and works as an associate
professor at Adiyaman University in Turkey.
Richard Sakwa joined the University of Kent in 1987, was promoted
to a professorship in 1996, and was head of the School of Politics and
International Relations between 2001 and 2007. In 2010, he once again
took over as head of school until 2014. While completing his doctorate on
Moscow politics during the Russian Civil War (1918 to 1921), he spent a
282 About the Editors and Contributors
year on the British Council scholarship at Moscow State University (1979
to 1980) and then worked for two years in Moscow in the Mir Science and
Technology Publishing House. Before moving to Kent, he lectured at the
University of Essex and the University of California, Santa Cruz. Sakwa is an
associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute
of International Affairs, Chatham House; honorary senior research fellow at
the Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies at the University of
Birmingham; and since September 2002, a member of Academy of Learned
Societies for the Social Sciences.
Luis Tomé is a professor at the Autonoma University of Lisbon in Portugal,
where he is currently director of the Department of International Relations and
the Observatory of Foreign Relations. He has also been a visiting professor at
the Portuguese Military University Institute, the National Defense University,
and the Higher Institute of Police Sciences and Homeland Security, as well
abroad at La Sapienza University of Rome, the Academy of Social Sciences
and Technology in Angola, the East Timor National Defense Institute, and the
Middle East Technical University in Turkey.
From November 2015 to October 2017, Luis Tomé was special advisor for
International Relations and Fighting Terrorism of the Portuguese minister of
home affairs. Previously, he was a NATO-EAPC researcher for two years
(author of the 2000 report “Russia and NATO’s Enlargement”) and advisor to
the vice president of the European Parliament (1999 to 2004).
Tomé earned a PhD in International Relations from the University of
Coimbra, a master’s degree in Strategy from the Technical University of
Lisbon, and a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Autónoma
University of Lisbon. His main areas of research and expertise are International
Relations, Geopolitics, and Security Studies, with a particular focus on
Euro-Atlantic, Asia-Pacific, and Eurasia regions.
He is the author and co-author of a dozen books and numerous articles and
essays. Luis Tomé has been a regular speaker at high-level conferences and
workshops in the country and abroad and a frequent commentator on security
and international politics for the media.
Sónia Sénica is a researcher at the Portuguese Institute of International
Relations. She was coordinator of a research project at the Luso-American
Development Foundation (2016), a participant in the course “Diplomatic
Protocol” of the École Nationale d’Administration in Paris (2008), a post-
graduate in “Theory and Diplomatic Practice” at the Lusíada University of
Lisbon (2004), a participant in the course “Russia and the Contemporary
World” at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign
About the Editors and Contributors 283
Affairs in Moscow (2003), and guest lecturer with several participations in
the national and international media.
Andrew K. P. Leung is a prominent international and independent China
strategist. Over forty years’ experience in senior Hong Kong government
positions; twice handed over to Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam
as director-general of social welfare and director-general London; China
Futures fellow, Massachusetts Berkshire Publishing Group; brain trust mem-
ber, IMD Lausanne Evian Group; Gerson Lehrman Group council member;
Thomas Reuters expert; senior analyst with Wikistrat; elected member of
the Royal Society for Asian Affairs; advisory board member, European
Centre for e-Commerce and Internet Law; think tank research fellow, Beijing
Normal University, Zhuhai Campus; visiting professor, London Metropolitan
University Business School; honorary president, China Hong Kong Economic
and Trading International Association; formerly governing council member,
King’s College London; advisory board member, China Policy Institute
of Nottingham University; and visiting professor, Sun Yat-sen University
Business School (2005 to 2010). In the 1980s, he oversaw Hong Kong’s
industrial transmigration into mainland China and helped launch the Quality
Campaign and Technology Centre. He was invited by the US government for
a month-long visit in 1990 to brief Fortune 50 CEOs personally, including
one-on-ones with Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine, on China post-1989.
In 2002, he was invited by Prince Andrew for a private briefing leading to
HRH’s first official visit to China as UK’s ambassador for trade and invest-
ment. He advised on cross-cultural management in Lenovo’s take-over of
IBM Computers, and he was invited as editor at large for an international
consultancy on China’s energies. He is a regular contributor, commentator,
and speaker on China at international conferences and an interviewee on
prominent international TV channels worldwide, including BBC, Sky, CNN,
ABC, Aljazeera, RT, TRT, Times Now, Chanel News Asia, CGTN, National
Geographic, etc. His topics include trade, finance, economics, geopolitics,
international relations, science and technology, sustainable industrial devel-
opment, and green cities. He has graduate qualifications from the University
of London, postgraduate qualifications from Cambridge University, PMD
from the Harvard Business School, and solicitors’ qualifying examination
certificate from the Law Society, London. He has been included in UK’s
Who since 2002 and was awarded Silver Bauhinia Star (SBS) in July 2005
on Hong Kong Honors List.
Ekrem Ok is the staff director of CESRAN International. He is currently a
lecturer in the Department of Foreign Trade at Agri Ibrahim Cecen University
in Turkey. He holds a master’s degree in international relations from the
284 About the Editors and Contributors
Karadeniz Technical University in Turkey. He is also a PhD candidate in
the Department of International Relations at Karadeniz Technical University
in Turkey.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This article assesses whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be justified as a humanitarian intervention. Because of the potential loss of life inherent in any military action, the author contends that a threshold test of a humanitarian intervention is whether it is necessary to stop ongoing or imminent mass slaughter. Although that test might have been met, say, at the time of the 1988 genocide against the Kurds, there was no ongoing or imminent mass slaughter in Iraq in March 2003. That lack is decisive in undermining claims that the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian intervention. Apart from this threshold test, the author also considers several secondary factors: whether force was the last resort, whether the invasion was guided primarily by a humanitarian purpose, whether it was conducted with maximum respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, whether it was likely to produce more good than harm, and whether, ideally though not necessarily, it was endorsed by the UN Security Council. The author concludes that the invasion of Iraq fails most of these secondary tests as well: the war as conceived in early 2003 was not primarily about stopping atrocities; non-military options for achieving its other stated purposes had not been exhausted; although the invading forces generally respected international humanitarian law, there were certain major exceptions; and the UN Security Council was never asked to contemplate a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. At most, it was reasonable to conclude in March 2003 that overthrowing Saddam Hussein might do more good than harm. On balance, therefore, the author concludes that the Iraq war cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
Chapter
Resolution 1973 authorising the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya was passed — on 17 March 2011 — on the third day of the International Studies Association’s (ISA) Annual Convention. The crisis in Libya erupted after the call for papers had closed and thus it was not the subject of any conference papers. Prior to the Resolution being passed, however, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) did feature prominently in many of the panel discussions. Prior to 17 March, no-one, at least to my knowledge, predicted that the UN Security Council would sanction measures as robust as those contained in Resolution 1973. At the 2012 ISA convention there was a proliferation of papers, panels and roundtables discussing the significance of the intervention; the only thing academics seemed to agree on was that Resolution 1973 was a surprise.
Chapter
On 17 March 2011, the United Nations authorized military intervention in Libya to protect civilians, responding to violence between government forces and opponents that had erupted the preceding month. Two days later, NATO initiated the intervention, including establishing a no-fly zone and launching aerial attacks on government forces. After seven months of NATO intervention, Libyan rebel forces conquered the country and killed the former authoritarian ruler, Muammar Gaddafi, in October 2011. Immediately, Western media and politicians praised the intervention as a humanitarian success for having averted a bloodbath in Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi, and helping replace the dictatorial Gaddafi regime with a transitional council pledged to democracy. Based on this ostensible success, many experts now cite Libya as a model for implementing the so-called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P). Before embracing such conclusions, however, it is important to conduct a more rigorous assessment of the net humanitarian impact of NATO intervention in Libya.
Chapter
‘Humanitarian intervention’, despite its positive rhetorical connotations, has become one of the key causes of contention and controversy in contemporary international relations. Each of the issues inherent in this debate — human rights, sovereignty, order versus justice, the role of the UN — constitutes seminal current concems in itself; together the issues create almost limitless scope for discussion and dispute. This capacity for dissonance is unsurprising given that the fundamental question raised by this issue — ‘when is it right to use force to protect those suffering in other states?’ — interrogates humanity’s moral values, challenges the composition of the international political system and questions the responsibilities and duties of all major international actors.
Article
Though increasingly legitimate, humanitarian intervention by the United Nations Security Council is selective and rare. This article illustrates how the increasing legitimacy of human rights norms is changing the meaning of state sovereignty and the purpose of military force at the United Nations. By examining Security Council discourse during debates about Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Darfur, and Libya, the article delineates the conditions under which discourse creates new opportunities for the Security Council to authorize, engage in, and support humanitarian intervention.
Article
Based on the Security Council’s disparate responses to relatively similar acts of regime violence in Syria and Libya, it seems that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is heavily influenced by factors other than the substantive act of violence. Accordingly, this paper discusses the legal, but also the strategic and pragmatic factors influencing the use, or abstention from the use, of armed humanitarian intervention. While some critics decry the influence of factors that are seemingly exogenous to Responsibility to Protect, this paper argues that the interplay of law and various matters of strategic concern such as politics, economics, and pragmatics is an unavoidable reality in a world where political actors (the states on the Security Council) decide the legitimacy of interventions. Therefore, this paper contends that the strategic and pragmatic concerns that prevent the use of force in Syria do not make the doctrine ipso facto illegitimate.
Article
The anti-interventionist rules of the U.N. Charter have fallen out of sync with the modern concept of justice, SO NATO is taking the law into its own hands.
Article
Air power proved decisive in the Libya intervention, but success was not inevitable. The use of air power to support local boots on the ground should not be the default model for future interventions.