Search

The issue of selectivity remains a highly contested notion in the debate on the legitimacy of military humanitarian intervention (MHI). In short, selectivity can be understood as the practice of global powers intervening in certain humanitarian crises when it benefits them to do so yet refraining from armed intervention in others when it would not seem to advance its strategic interests. Though the scholarship has been largely ubiquitous in accepting a practice of selectivity from global powers, it has debated its ascription as ‘problematic’. Critics have correctly pointed to this practice as a problem of ‘double-standards’ or ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of Global North actors, while defenders of MHI (or of its modern iteration in the responsibility to protect ‘R2P’ doctrine) have argued for the necessity of a selective practice of MHI and have construed it as unproblematic, unavoidable, and even pragmatic. However, an overarching characterization of the debate from both camps has rested on a key premise of selectivity as a problem of global power ‘inaction’ in ‘nonintervened’ crises – what I term as a paradigm of ‘bystander complicity’. In contrast, I argue that the selectivity issue must be reinterpreted as a problem of ‘active complicity’ from Global North actors to better understand its practice as problematic. Under the active complicity paradigm, I provide a much-needed decolonization of the selectivity issue to problematize the existing scholarship’s understanding of its practice as an issue of global powers simply ‘standing by’ as onlookers to disassociated, faraway crises, and instead reinterpret it a problem of Global North actors typically enabling and producing these crises in the first place through their foreign policies and actions. Upon an application of this reinterpretive paradigm towards previous cases of humanitarian crises, I find that the historical experiences of both ‘intervened’ and ‘nonintervened’ crises, as the existing selectivity paradigm would frame it, largely support this contention. As a prescription to remedy the existing literature’s flawed understanding of MHI-selectivity as a problem of bystander complicity, I develop the responsibility for justice (R4J) conceptualization as an alternative framework to R2P to account for the problem of Global North active complicity and help us better understand and deal with past, current, and future cases of humanitarian crises.

The status of humanitarian intervention in international law is, on the face of it, simple—the Charter clearly prohibits the use of force. This chapter presents the international rules governing the use of force and the attempts—largely unsuccessful—to fit humanitarian intervention into those rules. It examines the claim that certain cases of alleged humanitarian intervention might best be seen as "exceptions" to the rule, or situations in which the rule can be disregarded. The chapter considers the emergence of the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) as an attempt at a new framing of the old legal questions. The case of Libya suggests the wariness of the Security Council in embracing R2P—even in what one might regard as a perfect case for its application. In the context of humanitarian intervention, many appeared to hope that a departure from "traditional" conceptions of sovereignty and international law would privilege ethics over states' rights.

Küreselleşmenin karşı konulamaz hızının da yardımı ile devletler artık egemenlik, terörizm, askeri teknolojiler gibi kemikleşmiş konular yerine çağımızın getirdiği sağlık ve çevresel sorunlara daha fazla eğilmeye ve bu konulara gereken ciddiyeti daha fazla gösterme eğilimine girmiş olsalar da ‘‘Koruma Sorumluluğu’’ kavramı günümüz dünyasına bakıldığında hala önemini korumaktadır. 20. yüzyılın son zamanlarında insani krizlerin sık sık ortaya çıkması ile devletler kendilerini koruma sorumluluğu kavramı çerçevesinde yapılmak istenen insani müdahalelerin meşruluğu konusunda kendilerini ateşli tartışmalar içinde bulmuştur. Özellikle Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika'daki son çatışmalar, koruma sorumluluğu kavramının hangi şartlar altında, kim yada kimler tarafından işletileceği hususu yapılan bu tartışmaların kilit noktası olması gerektiğini göstermiştir. Bir devletin kendi devletinde yaşayan insanlara uygulamış olduğu ciddi hak ihlallerine karşı uluslararası arenada koruma sorumluluğu kavramı ile güzel bir cevap verilmek istenmiş olsa da geriye dönüp bakıldığında bu amaca ulaşılamadığı görülecektir., With the help of the irresistible speed of globalization, even though the states tend to focus more on the health and environmental problems brought by our age and show the necessary seriousness to these issues instead of the deep-rooted issues such as sovereignty, terrorism and military technologies, the notion of ''Responsibility to Protect'' still maintains its importance. With the frequent emergence of humanitarian crises in the late twentieth century, states have found themselves in heated debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions within the framework of the responsibility to protect. Recent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, have shown that under what conditions, who or by whom the notion of responsibility to protect should be the key point of these discussions. Even though a good answer has been tried to be given with the concept of protection responsibility in the international arena against serious violations of rights that a state has applied to the people living in its own state, it will be seen that this goal has not been achieved.

In his impassioned No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using ‘Humanitarian’ Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests, human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik makes the case that the recently considered responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, which allows for humanitarian intervention in narrowly defined circumstances, is legally and morally untenable. Humanitarian interventions of this kind, Kovalik argues, mask the true imperial interests of those who intervene and perpetuate a colonial legacy of northern domination of the global south. No More War bridges academic and popular discourse, making it an informative read for those involved in the theoretical and legal study of international relations and for policymakers in the field. Nevertheless, Kovalik's book would benefit from a sharper distinction between international norms and laws. Although the impact of the R2P documents on international law is debatable, there is little controversy that the norm surrounding humanitarian intervention has changed. Moreover, as we show, there are reasons to believe that the law has changed as well. Kovalik's book would also have benefited from omitting a number of polemical points, which may alienate readers who might otherwise agree with his core theses.

Humanitarian interventions and state sovereignty are hard to reconcile and have long been regarded as mutually exclusive. Disciplinary approaches dedicated to their relation focus on a changing mea...

In 2017, the long-festering discriminatory treatment to the Rohingyas in Myanmar, both in law and practice, resulted in the largest cross-border humanitarian crisis in Asia. During the 2016‑2017 Rohingya refugee crisis, the aerial shots of burnt villages and images of people trudging toward the horizon in search of refuge in neighboring nations dominated the Western media. However, for humanitarians, the question of whether the media helps with humanitarian crises remains complicated and unclear. This study examines the effects of media coverage on the Rohingya refugee crisis based on articles from two liberal, elite newspaper sources, The New York Times and The Guardian between 2010 and 2020. The study reveals that the attempts of international pressure to stop the crisis have increased through media coverage and political pressures; however, the number of Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar intensified due to worsening violence and human rights violations committed by the Myanmar army. Findings are discussed using the lens of cultural and ideological context. The study suggests that in Myanmar, where authoritarian military culture is pervasive, there is a limited influence of the international press on the state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya population and questions whether consistent international pressure could have changed the outcome.

Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.

Drastic violations of human rights, humanitarian crises or genocide constituted a basis for the intervention of military forces under the flag of the UN or as part of a coalition of states after th...

N/A

The scale and gravity of the Syrian conflict has led to calls for the international community to fulfil its responsibility to protect the people. Despite mounting evidence of atrocity crimes commit...

An unpleasant truth overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can solve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. This study empirically analyzes whether these arguments are supported by evidence on recent military interventions. In our analysis, the effect of military intervention on deterioration risk is not highly significant and considerable. At peak, danger—the risk of state collapse—is about 38%, whereas a country with no intervention has a risk of 19%. R2P doctrine, however, developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 with the avowed objectives of protecting humans from mass atrocities and other crimes, is theoretically defective, which will continue to be limited. To avoid arbitrary intervention, we should restructure the philosophy of the R2P to one with which any society of any age can agree and pursue a “minimalist-institutional approach.”

The frame of international news is colored with a series of systemic and consistent human rights violation experienced by the Rohingya ethnic group in Burma. Toward this case, it is unlikely for Burma to be willing and to be able to resolve this case internally. Hence, as a regional security and stability guard in the Southeast Asia region, ASEAN should take part in settling human rights violations that occur in its member states. However, every settlement attempted by ASEAN is constantly distracted with Non-Intervention Principles. This research aims to examine the alternative ideas for Non-Intervention Principles of ASEAN as a settlement towards human rights violation on Rohingya ethnic. This research used normative research, based on the secondary data was employed as the research method. The obtained data were analyzed by using qualitative analysis. The research found that the Non-Intervention principle has been applied in ASEAN in the most rigid form. Meanwhile, Humanitarian Assistance and Humanitarian Intervention mechanism is an alternative settlement towards human rights violations on the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar

The use of military intervention against Humanitarian Crises during the Cold War was a concept that was limited in world politics and international law. Today, despite the theoretical and legal debates, sometimes by UN Security Council resolutions and sometimes by exceeding the only legitimate authorized institution of the use of force, states implement their responsibility to protect against third-party countries. Studies on the responsibility to protect, covering the history and theory of international relations, call the Cyprus Peace Operation a controversial example of humanitarian intervention in terms of the international community's reaction and the operation's legitimacy. Therefore, it will be examined within the framework of the responsibility to protect (R2P) in international political theory. In the 1990s, the International Relations literature defined humanitarian intervention as limiting the sovereignty of states against global atrocities. After the 2005 Earth Summit, R2P, third-party action against humanitarian crises, becomes a normative order-forming phenomenon. The phenomenon will allow us to examine the 1974 peace movement within the context of its responsibility to protect it. Discussions on the Cyprus Peace Operation under the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be used as the study's research method in the Parliamentary Budget Discussions., Koruma sorumluluğu, Soğuk Savaş döneminde sınırlı olarak kullanılan, dünya politikası ve uluslararası hukuk adına kavramsallaşmamış bir müdahale türünü ifade eder. Günümüzde ise, üzerine yapılan teorik ve hukuki tartışmalara rağmen, BM Güvenlik Konseyi kararlarınca pratikte kabul edilmiş bir yaptırım türüdür. Söz edilen teorik çalışmalarda, önemli bir örnek olarak geçen, ancak etkisi ve uluslararası meşruiyeti açısından büyük ölçüde tartışma yaratan Kıbrıs Barış Harekatı’nı, insani müdahalenin uluslararası politik teorisindeki çerçevesiyle incelemeye çalışacağım. Uluslararası İlişkiler literatüründe, insani nedenler kapsamında devletin egemenlik hakkını aşarak diğer ülkelerin cebir kullanmasında yönelik bu kavram, özellikle liberal uluslararası ilişkiler tarafından savunulurken, realist ve eleştirel paradigmadan gelen eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Bu savunmalar ve eleştiriler bize, 1974 Barış hareketinin incelemesinde, yön gösterebilir mi? Harekat sonrası uluslararası kamuoyunun yaklaşımıyla Türk Dış politikası arasındaki yaklaşımlar nasıl karşılaştırılabilir? Bu bağlamda dönemin Meclis Tutanaklarındaki dış bütçe görüşmeleri ve dış basının değerlendirilmesi, insani müdahale literatürüne yönelik perspektifle incelenmeye çalışılacaktır.

This study inquires into the question, whether and how the acceptance of the use of military force to intervene into a situation of civil war in another state among citizens is influenced by the legitimizing authority for the use of military force on the international level. This study focusses on Germany. It is a follow up study to another preregisterd study that focussed on the UK, drawing on the same survey and scenarios.

Bu çalışmada, Eleştirel Hukuk Çalışmalarının -bilhassa Martti Koskenniemi’nin- kavramlarına başvurularak, “egemenlik ve insancıl müdahale” ikili karşıtlığı hususunda değerlendirmeler yapılacaktır. Devletlerin ulusal çıkarlarının gerektirdiği konu ve zamanlarda, gerek egemenlik haklarına gerekse insancıl müdahaleye vurgu yapabildikleri görülmektedir. Bu iki kavram arasında, itme ve çekmeden kaynaklanan bir felç durumu söz konusudur. Bu felç durumu, egemenlik nosyonunun başat olduğu bir sistemde açmazı derinleştirmekte ve bu iki kavram arasında bir taraf seçimini imkânsız kılmaktadır. Söz konusu açmazın çözümü için ortaya atılan Koruma Sorumluluğu (R2P) doktrini, insancıl nedenlerle müdahaleyi “egemenliğin” bir sonucu olarak kodlayarak söz konusu açmazı çözmeye çalışmıştır. Ne var ki bu hâliyle doktrin devlet davranışlarının bir “apolojisi” olmaktan kurtulamamaktadır. Sonuç olarak yapısından dolayı son derece esnek olan uluslararası hukuk, taraflar arasındaki en küçük bir güç eşitsizliğinde güçlüden yana tavır almaktadır. Bu nedenle “adalet” ilkesinin yeniden sisteme entegre edilmesi, söz konusu açmazın çözümünde bir yol olabilir., In this study, the duality of "sovereignty and humanitarian intervention" will be put on the table by adopting the concepts of Critical Legal Studies – especially those introduced by Martti Koskenniemi. It is seen that states can emphasize both the rights of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention in the circumstances necessitated by their national interests. Between these two concepts, there is a paralysis caused by pushing and pulling. This paralysis deepens the dilemma in a system where the notion of sovereignty is principal and makes it impossible to choose a side between these two concepts. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was put forward to solve the dilemma in question by coding humanitarian intervention as the result of sovereignty. However, the doctrine cannot escape from being an "apology" for state behaviour. As a result, international law, which is extremely flexible due to its structure, stands with the powerful side in the situation of inequality between the parties. Therefore, reintegration of the principle of "justice" into the system can be a way to solve this dilemma.

This paper critically examines the implications of technology for the ethics of intervention and vice versa, especially regarding (but not limited to) the concept of military humanitarian intervention (MHI). To do so, it uses two recent pro-interventionist proposals as lenses through which to analyse the relationship between interventionism and technology. These are A. Altman and C.H. Wellman’s argument for the assassination of tyrannical leaders, and C. Fabre’s case for foreign electoral subversion. Existing and emerging technologies, the paper contends, play an important role in realising these proposals. This illustrates the potential of technology to facilitate interventionist practices that transcend the traditional concept of MHI, with its reliance on kinetic force and large-scale military operations. The question, of course, is whether this is normatively desirable. Here, the paper takes a critical view. While there is no knockdown argument against either assassination or electoral subversion for humanitarian purposes, both approaches face similar challenges, most notably regarding public accountability, effectiveness, and appropriate regulatory frameworks. The paper concludes by making alternative suggestions for how technology can be utilised to improve the protection of human rights. Overall, the paper shows that an engagement with technology is fruitful and necessary for the ethics of intervention.

The article focuses on a particular type of Islamic marriage, so-called imam marriages, which are not recognised by the Jordanian state but widely practised among and with Syrian refugees since the...

The activation of the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court has renewed interest in one of the oldest and most fraught questions of the jus ad bellum: whether a state is entitled to unilaterally use force on the territory of another state for humanitarian purposes. Scholars who support unilateral humanitarian intervention (UHI) generally make two interrelated claims. The first is positivist: that unilateral intervention is lawful if it is genuinely intended to end mass atrocity. The second is normative: that genuinely humanitarian unilateral intervention should be lawful because, in the right circumstances, it can serve as an effective mechanism for protecting civilians from harm. In this article, I criticize both claims. I begin by arguing that, from a positivist perspective, even genuinely humanitarian unilateral intervention violates the prohibition of the use of force and qualifies as a criminal act of aggression. I then argue that the historical record undermines the normative attractiveness of UHI because it is extremely difficult to find an actual example of a unilateral intervention motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns, especially one that improved the humanitarian situation in the territorial state. Finally, I conclude by arguing that the basic effect of insisting on the legality of UHI is to weaken one of the few clear prohibitions in international law for no discernible benefit, making the desire to decriminalize such intervention a well-meaning equivalent to the notorious ticking time-bomb scenario.

International Humanitarian Law (HHI) has regulated provisions regarding the protection of medical personnel in a conflict, whether an international, non-international armed conflict or an internationalized armed conflict. These categories of various types of armed conflict are also part of the legality of the emergence of humanitarian intervention by medical personnel in an armed conflict. A form of medical care for parties who are either directly or indirectly involved in an armed conflict. In the Indonesian context, the provisions regulating separately the protection of medical personnel in armed conflict have not been regulated separately. However, considering that Indonesia has ratified the 1949 Geneva Convention, the convention can be considered as the official Indonesian national regulation on the protection of medical personnel in armed conflict. In this article, it is demonstrated that there were still many violations, especially against the purpose of war, which made medical officers and medical buildings in an armed conflict a military target, such as in the Syrian conflict, as well as domestic Indonesia such as Aceh and Papua. Several factors have led to the fall of medical personnel in various armed conflicts (both horizontal and vertical) in Indonesia, among others are: (a) The parties to an armed conflict are not aware of the provisions of the principles of international humanitarian law. (b) The parties are suspicious of the neutrality of the medical personnel, as well as (c) Not having a good communication system between the conflicting parties and medical personnel.

The article deals with the problem of moral justification of humanitarian intervention by modern just war theorists. At the beginning of the article, we discuss the evolution of the dominant paradigms of the moral justification of war and explain why the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention appears only at the present stage of the development of ethics and the law of war. It is noted that theorization of humanitarian intervention began in the last decades of the 20thcentury. This is due to a significant transformation, a retreat in the legal and ethical studies of war from the position of radical condemnation of aggressive actions and the recognition of the political subjectivity of non-state groups. Thus, there is a rethinking of the long tradition, the Westphalian system of international relations, according to which the state was recognized as the main participant of big politics, and its sovereign right to conduct domestic policy was considered indisputable. Further, we take the works of Michael Walzer as the main source of modern conceptualization of the ethics of humanitarian interventionism, since Walzer repeatedly addressed this topic and formulated a position on this issue that is representative of the entire modern Just War Theory. The arguments of Walzer and his supporters in favor of the moral justification of humanitarian intervention are considered. Among them are the following. First, the argument about the state as an organization which goal is to protect the rights of its own citizens. If this goal is not not achieved, the state shall loose its power over these people and in this territory. Second, Walzer calls for identifying governments and armed forces involved in mass murders as criminal and, therefore, deserving of punishment. Finally, there is, perhaps the most important, demonstrative argument: an appeal to the self-evident impossibility to stand aside in cases of mass violence in any state. This is followed by a critique of these arguments, as well as a demonstration of how the modern Just War Theory can respond to these criticisms.

In the article, I examine the relevance of Just War Doctrine to contemporary conflicts. Just War Doctrine, which grew out of Western Christian thinking, presupposes that evil might be confronted with force, if there is no alternative way to restore a just order. But modern trends call into question the certainty and universality of this doctrine. On the one hand, ideas of moral relativism and comparative justice have become more widespread, potentially undermining the use of the notions “just” and “justified” in relation to military conflicts. On the other hand, the nature of war is changing, as warfare is no longer only kinetic in character. I offer examples of how the evolving character of warfare challenges the traditional understanding of Just War Doctrine. For example, there is the growing threat of cyber warfare, but the ethical criteria for its use are not defined. In relation to Just War Doctrine, questions of whether and when pre-emptive cyber attack is permissible arise, what should constitute legitimate targets of cyber warfare and to what degree collateral damage could be acceptable. Another challenge to the traditional understanding of Just of War Doctrine was the putative doctrine of humanitarian intervention.Prima facie,humanitarian interventions do not comply withius ad bellumcriteria of Just War Doctrine, because of the absence of a direct military threat to the intervening state. The justification of humanitarian intervention is based on the assertion of an intolerable violation of accepted values. The weakness of such approach, as discussed in the article, is that it implicitly assumes that one protagonist’s values are superior to others. A further example of emerging challenges to Just War Doctrine is the phenomenon of hybrid war, a term used to describe a type of conflict that is multi-faceted and in which kinetic warfare is not dominant. The orchestration of several strands of conflict, each designed to be below the threshold to provoke a military response, exploits the absence of legal and ethical norms regulating such activity. I conclude the article by suggesting that, firstly, for Just War Doctrine to remain relevant, it should be expanded to include harms caused by non-kinetic actions, and, secondly, the distinctions between the states of war and peace should be redefined to reflect the changing character of war more accurately.

Objectives The catastrophic effects of armed conflict, particularly prolonged armed conflict, on individual and public health are well-established. The ‘right’ to healthcare during armed conflict and its lack of enforcement despite a range of United Nations mandated requirements regarding health and healthcare provisions is likely to be a significant feature in future conflicts, as zoonotic induced pandemics become a more common global public health challenge. The issue of enforcement of health rights assurance and its implications for the public health management of global pandemics such as COVID-19 in and between countries and regions in conflict is the objective of this Review. Study Design Narrative Review. Methods Referenced to the framework of International humanitarian law (IHL) and International human rights law (IHRL) in order to explore and discuss the deficits in health rights assurances in conflict settings and illustrate how gaps in protection and lack of enforcement compounds the disease response. Both international humanitarian law, and international human rights law can be leveraged to ensure human and health rights are assured in conflict settings. There is a distinct lack of international criteria with regard to standards of health care coverage, infrastructure and service preservation to the civilian population during times of armed conflict. This has far reaching consequences when confounded by a pandemic or even localised disease outbreak. Results We illustrate how in a pandemic disease emergency, such as COVID-19, all life is threatened; and how leaving the citizen population exposed to this contagion is a human rights breach and an indirect method of warfare. The consequences of failure to effectively address such pandemic infections, (i.e. COVID-19), in a conflict setting are potentially catastrophic as prevention and containment responses are severely constrained by state insecurity, political instability, terrorism, repression, rights abuses and displacement of citizens. Neglect by State actors potentially constitutes a breach of the universal right to life. States cannot justify their failures to mitigate disease based on claims of lack of resources, even when available resources are minimal. Where discrimination of people with a disease, such as COVID-19, or minority groups at the point of access to health facilities occurs, this further breaches the principle of medical neutrality. Conclusions The example of the COVID-19 response may offer a viable route to leverage greater access and coverage of health care in conflict and humanitarian settings. A radicalised partnership approach during these times of emergency is warranted, based on an ethical “humanitarian intervention” approach to provide care to all affected by contagious disease in conflict settings.., Highlights • The catastrophic effects of armed conflict on individual and public health are well-established. • Zoonotic induced pandemics (COVID-19) are a growing public health challenge in conflict settings. • International humanitarian law and human rights law can be leveraged to ensure health rights are assured in conflict settings. • In a pandemic disease emergency life is threatened; and leaving citizens exposed to contagion is a human rights breach and an indirect method of warfare. • States cannot justify their failures to mitigate disease based on claims of lack of resources. • Breaches of medical neutrality occur where discrimination of people with COVID-19 at the point of access to health facilities occurs. • COVID-19 responses may offer a viable route to leverage greater access and coverage of health care in conflict settings.

UK governments have often claimed that humanitarian intervention – without the consent of the target state and if necessary without express UN Security Council authorization – is legally permissible in exceptional circumstances, a stance that is highly controversial. The UK’s position is at odds with prevailing international legal doctrine, which is counterintuitive for a country that is generally committed to international law, the UN framework, and multilateralism. It is also in tension with normative developments related to human protection, such as the international ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principle, which established that coercive responses to human suffering must be authorized by the UN Security Council. This article explores the background to the UK’s position on humanitarian intervention, and it argues that this reflects an element of continuity in the UK’s foreign policy in historical perspective, as a legacy of global engagement and a sense of moral righteousness and duty. The article also considers whether the UK’s position may be contributing to an evolution of the norms governing the use of force for human protection.

In modern conditions, public diplomacy is becoming an important structural component of the strategy of leading actors in world politics, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). There are several periods, each characterized by its own block of goals and objectives of public diplomacy, the direction of their development in accordance with the evolution of the strategic attitudes of the bloc as a model of collective security, such as the Cold War, the «period immediately after the Cold War and cooperation» in NATO terminology) and the period of globalization (or the «period of new security conditions after 11.09.2001» in NATO terminology). NATO’s public diplomacy includes a set of forms and methods, forces and means of propaganda, as well as the means of group communication used to explain NATO’s policies, assist in military operations and other tasks. This activity is aimed at forming a «correct understanding» by the target audiences of NATO’s practical steps to maintain a stable situation in crisis regions, which eliminates hostility on the part of local leadership and the population towards the bloc’s troops. In 1991 and 1999, NATO’s strategic concepts were adopted, based on the political and military-strategic settings of the «flexible response» strategy, supplemented by changes in the military-political situation after the end of the Cold War. The large-scale terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 marked the beginning of a «period of new security conditions» and set the alliance’s public diplomacy a set of tasks to actively engage new allies and partners, including in the Caucasus and Central Asia. An important area was to promote the coordination of diplomatic efforts between NATO, the EU and the OSCE, and to promote the «new face of NATO» in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention.

The civil war in Mount Lebanon and the massacres of Christians in Damascus and other cities in 1860 ushered in a new era to the Levant region, leading to the establishment of the Mount Lebanon Muta...

With the future of liberal internationalism in question, how will China's growing power and influence reshape world politics? We argue that views of the Liberal International Order (LIO) as integrative and resilient have been too optimistic for two reasons. First, China's ability to profit from within the system has shaken the domestic consensus in the United States on preserving the existing LIO. Second, features of Chinese Communist Party rule chafe against many of the fundamental principles of the LIO, but could coexist with a return to Westphalian principles and markets that are embedded in domestic systems of control. How, then, do authoritarian states like China pick and choose how to engage with key institutions and norms within the LIO? We propose a framework that highlights two domestic variables—centrality and heterogeneity—and their implications for China's international behavior. We illustrate the framework with examples from China's approach to climate change, trade and exchange rates, Internet governance, territorial sovereignty, arms control, and humanitarian intervention. Finally, we conclude by considering what alternative versions of international order might emerge as China's influence grows.

Military operations lie at the center of international relations theory and practice. Although security studies scholars have used campaign analysis to study military operations for decades, the method has not been formally defined or standardized, and there is little methodological guidance available for scholars interested in conducting or evaluating it. Campaign analysis is a method involving the use of a model and techniques for managing uncertainty to answer questions about military operations. The method comprises six steps: (1) question selection, (2) scenario development, (3) model construction, (4) value assignment, (5) sensitivity analysis, and (6) interpretation and presentation of results. The models that scholars develop to direct analysis are significant intellectual contributions in their own right, and can be adapted by other scholars and practitioners to guide additional analyses. Careful model construction can clarify, but does not obviate, the uncertainty of conflict. To manage uncertainty in parameter values, scholars can use the “input distribution approach” to propagate uncertainty in inputs through to a model's output. Replications and extensions of Wu Riqiang's 2020 analysis of Chinese nuclear survivability and Barry Posen's 1991 analysis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's prospects against the Warsaw Pact illustrate the six steps of campaign analysis, the value of transparent models and the input distribution approach, and the potential of campaign analysis to contribute to policy and theory.

Regionalism and regional institutions are increasingly being challenged and conditioned by the sovereignty-modifying effects of globalisation and humanitarian intervention. Regionalism is facing pressure to become less sovereignty-bound in the sense of going against the norms of non-interference and non-intervention that underpin the Westphalia international system. The study evaluates the challenges and opportunities that constrain and enhance Kenya and Tanzania participation in the EAC econo-political integration process. Three theories, Two-Good theory, Neoclassical Realism and Neo-functionalism theories, were adopted to guide the study. Descriptive research design was used. Respondents were both from Kenya and Tanzania and they comprised cross border business community, government officials in Ministries of EAC and Foreign Affairs, and EAC organs—the Secretariat and Legislative Assembly which were purposively sampled. Both primary and secondary sources data was used while instruments of data collection were: questionnaires, interviews and focus group discussions guides. Findings revealed that challenges that constrain Kenya’s and Tanzania’s participation in the EAC integration emanate from structural, legal and administrative weaknesses and commissions or omissions. The fact that the issue of manifestation of non-tariff barriers disguised as administrative and technical policies is baneful and inimical. Additionally, import substitution strategy and the incongruity in taxation policies are some of the challenges that constrain Kenya’s and Tanzania’s participation in the EAC econo-political integration. The study therefore recommends that the citizens should be at the centre of the EAC integration process through structured stakeholders’ engagement where their input and participation are affirmed. Similarly, taxation of cross border business community should be reviewed and taxes should be harmonised to provide a level playing field in order to address their perennial complaints.

The Venezuela crisis is an intersection between political turmoil, economic crisis, mismanagement of natural resources, poverty, and health issues. The root causes of the crisis can be examined by using a peace psychology analysis, chiefly the concept of moral disengagement. This perspective is useful for looking at the Venezuelan crisis in a different approach and, at the same time, addressing peace efforts. One of the things that need to be pursued by domestic actors and humanitarian intervention is reconciliation. This reconciliation must meet the pre-conditions for the dialogue and peace agenda.