Search

The article focuses on Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which successfully challenged the view that sovereignty provided an iron shield behind which states could mistreat their people without outside scrutiny. Topics discussed include institutions such as the International Criminal Court and doctrines such as the "Responsibility to Protect," over which human rights actors have significant influence, Islam and Confucianism represent cultural areas just as large and significant and the Nuremberg Trials and the Genocide Convention that was approved by the United Nations (UN).

The article focuses on the use of force in humanitarian crises and mass atrocity crimes and limitation of the United Nations (UN) Security Council. It mentions need for a framework for non-UN authorized military force in the name of humanitarian intervention. It also mentions 2001 UN codification of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) granted the UN Security Council exclusive control over authorizing use of force in sovereign states.

The article presents an introduction to the issue that discusses topics including terrorism and counterterroritst actions, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the United Nations and the transportation industry's response to terrorism.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is the national and international responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities, adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit. International action through the UN Security Council is activated when a state fails to protect. This article asks why R2P objectives are difficult to realize through the Council. The main focus is on the reactive component of R2P where the use of military force is an option. The discussion has four sections: R2P as a policy; the composition of the Council and the role of the veto powers; a discussion of organized hypocrisy, which is well known in complex organizations; and the relationship between decision makers and implementing actors. Together, this paints a picture of an "alliance" between R2P and the Security Council which is "unreliable." The analytical tools are a classic study of implementation and theoretical insights about how complex organizations perform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to shed light on the question of how 'meanings' of an international norm adapt to norm contestation and asks whether and how R2P is being adapted to contestation. We contend that the reframing of an existing international norm by norm proponents in order to adapt it to dynamics of norm contestation have not been discussed adequately in the literature to date. Constructivist research on norm contestation could benefit from taking into account concepts in the new institutionalist literature. By combining the institutionalist concepts of 'borrowing' and 'sharing' with the literature on norm entrepreneurs and their framing-attempts in norm diffusion processes, we conjecture that an expansion in contestation increases the likeliness of the adaptation of the norm in question along the line of the contested issues. We aim to trace this adaptation by analysing the dynamics of R2P's change in meaning and focus in its process of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recurring contestation of the application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in conflict situations has given rise to assessments that portray R2P as not a norm at all, but rather a norm-to-be or one in decay. This article aims to show that norms do not lose their validity because they are contested. All norms rely on applicatory discourses to establish their appropriateness for given situations. Contestation regarding their application can even strengthen norms when it provokes learning processes. Norm validity is at risk if contestation radicalises, that is, turns into norm justification. As yet there are only few signs of radicalisation of the contestation of R2P. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), touted in 2009 as 'the most dramatic normative development of our time', is highly contentious, having generated a scholarly literature far greater than its real-world impact would seem to warrant. This may well be because of its potential to challenge and displace core existing norms, the most widely cited of which is sovereignty. This paper draws on the theory of Cognitive Structures of Cooperation (CSC Theory) to identify the relationship of R2P to existing normative structures, including the Charter of the United Nations, with a view to assessing the depth of the challenge posed and the potential consequences if the emergent norm were to be fully embraced. The analysis concludes that, rather than representing the object and potential victim of the R2P assault, sovereignty is better understood as having represented a decoy in this process of normative contestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contestation is currently one major field of research on international norms: does contestation strengthen or weaken a norm? What role does international law play in this regard? How do norm proponents and norm challengers change their strategies in norm contestation processes? Drawing on constructivist perspectives as well as on international law, the articles in this Special Issue explore the effects of norm contestation and its dynamics by analysing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the responsibility to prosecute from different theoretical perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This bibliography contains journal articles, book chapters, books, edited volumes, theses, grey literature, bibliographies and other resources on the thematic complex of humanitarian intervention, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and peacekeeping. While focusing on recent literature, the bibliography is not restricted to a particular time period and covers publications up to December 2018. The literature has been retrieved by manually browsing through more than 200 sources in relevant fields of social science studies. Additionally, full-text and reference retrieval systems have been employed to broaden the search. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La moción de censura en los Estados democráticos constituye una herramienta que, a pesar de los años, no ha perdido su carácter de mecanismo de control político. Es más, se podría decir que, por su empleo en las últimas crisis democráticas, ha demandado que se evalúen sus elementos racionalizadores, y con mayor razón en los sistemas no parlamentarios. Por ello, el presente trabajo plantea analizar el empleo que este instrumento ha tenido en nuestro país, sin perder de vista sus orígenes históricos, y analizando los factores para su ejercicio legítimo y no abusivo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past two decades, humanitarian actors have been grappling increasingly with the complex issue of protecting civilians. The definition of protection adopted by humanitarians is considered to be too broad to provide effective operational direction. This paper aims to contribute to recent initiatives to operationalise protection. Teasing out a broad typology of humanitarian protection through an examination of the scope, objectives, and strategies of a range of humanitarian actors, it suggests, would result in better identification of gaps and the channelling of efforts to support a system‐wide protection response. Emphasising recent calls for collective analysis as a means of eventuating protection, the paper also draws attention to the contested understanding that may arise concerning solutions to protection crises. Closely entwined with politics, protection defies neat technical solutions. The paper concludes that deepening knowledge of how communities conceive their own interests may provide the basis for a collective protection response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the throes of war, protecting such cultural heritage as the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Mostar Bridge, the Timbuktu libraries and Palmyra supposedly is a priority on the international public policy agenda; but government responses so far have been limited to deploring such destruction. This article explores the evolving, albeit contested, norm of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) and its relevance for cultural heritage. There is no need for a hierarchy of protection - civilians or culture - because the juxtaposition is as erroneous as choosing between people and the environment. This essay begins with a discussion of cultural heritage and defines the scope for the application of any new international normative consensus. It then explores why R2P, in the original concept of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), is an appropriate framework for thinking about cultural protection, despite considerable political headwinds. It then examines the current opportune political moment and existing legal tools. Finally, there is a brief consideration of the obstacles facing the creation of a better framework for cultural protection in zones of armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the human rights movement and the international laws addressing the advancement and protection of human rights. Topics discussed include the creation of ad hoc Tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC), some threats to human rights including the emergence of a modern variation of authoritarianism or populism, criticisms against the ICC and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and author Kathryn Sikkink's perspectives on human rights.

The principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was unanimously endorsed in principle during the UN World Summit 2005. The principle reaffirms the state's responsibility in protecting its citizens, as well as proclaims the International responsibility to citizens. The World Summit emphasizes the importance of citizens to be protected from large-scale humanitarian crisis such as genocide, war crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Responsibilities to provide such protections will shift from the hands of state actors to the International community if states cannot provide the provision of the outlined protections. Since the implementation, invocations of the R2P have been rare and not implemented in cases that fulfill the criteria of the R2P principle. Such issues have led to the derogation of its principles and implementation, marked with a number of primary cases that are related to the R2P, including: (1) lack of clarity in regards to the criteria of "Crimes against Humanity", (2) prevalence of political interests that occur in the application of the "Just Cause" criteria, and (3) misinterpretation of the Responsibility to Protect. The major cases have proven disastrous, as the issue of not invoking the R2P principle, or the misapplication of the principle, have led to the humanitarian crisis felt by millions of innocent civilians located all over the globe, which urgently required external assistance and protection at that time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, there has been increasing recognition that the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P) and refugee protection are inextricably linked and conceptually connected. The question remains, however, whether the link between the two protection frameworks can provide a basis for the protection of prima facie refugees fleeing mass atrocity crimes. This article identifies that prima facie refugees have the right to protection irrespective of where they arrive. It finds that the prima facie provision is one that exists under international refugee law and is highly relevant to the R2P principle. R2P facilitates a framework of prima facie protection, but it must include the political and legal norms of R2P and international refugee law. The article argues that expanding the idea of R2P and refugee protection as an interlinked agenda offers a protection-oriented framework to address the protection needs of prima facie refugees fleeing mass atrocity crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although international norms on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), norms stemming from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the agenda of Women, Peace and Security (WPS) have shifted the narrative from a state-centric to a human-centric approach to security, they have failed to intersect in the most difficult contexts. This paper examines the intersections between Pillar III of R2P, Resolution 1325 and the agenda of WPS with a focus on protection in Gaza. Within the Gaza context, all authorities can be seen as failing in their responsibility to protect, however, no steps have been taken toward operationalisation of protection under R2P. Examining protection through a gendered lens provides a critical mirror of strategies of protection as well as a roadmap towards improvement. The article argues that R2P in combination with the agenda of WPS provides a potential tool for constructing a consensus prioritising protection of civilians in the most difficult contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid rise of the Responsibility to Protect and its establishment within the global lexicon is nothing short of astounding. However, there are a number of questions that remain unanswered: Who has the Responsibility to Protect? Who are they protecting? What are the wider implications of this concept of responsibility? How is the concept being operationalized? Regional and subregional organizations are seen as key actors in the operationalization of the Responsibility to Protect, providing increased legitimacy and accountability. This article situates these organizations within a wider "network of responsibility" and examines the impact this engagement has on norm contestation, diffusion, development, and operationalization.The article highlights the potential that regional and subregional organizations have for acting as "linchpins" within a network of responsibility. It also demonstrates the challenges surrounding this role, and the wider implementation and operationalization of the concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Her research interests and publications cover security relations in the Asia-Pacific, human rights, Asian regional institutions, China and regional and world order, and China-US relations. He is the author of I Xinjiang and China's Rise in Central Asia - A History i (Routledge 2011) and editor of I Terrorism and Counterterrorism in China: Domestic and Foreign Policy Dimensions i (Oxford University Press 2018). He specializes in the history and politics of China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Chinese foreign and security policy. [Extracted from the article]

This contribution by the United Nations' first Special Adviser for the Responsibility to Protect reflects on where R2P has been and where it is going fifteen years after it was approved at the World Summit of 2005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is the responsibility to protect (R2P) still controversial? The question is important because if R2P was no longer controversial, this would suggest that the principle is on track to consolidation as an international norm. The article assesses the impact of 16 years of sustained R2P advocacy and its influence on arguments within the scholarly community, and discusses the impact this engagement has had on the outline and substance of the principle itself. A survey of the development of the academic debate since 2005 suggests that the 'responsibility to protect' has successfully replaced 'humanitarian intervention' in international discourse, but that the principle remains controversial, especially beyond the policy community, particularly in the world of academe, in the humanitarian aid sector and religious organizations and with states with a colonial past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the concept of responsibility to protect, applied on the case study of South Sudan. The introductory part of the paper discusses the concept itself, its emergence and inclusion in relevant international law documents. The second part is dedicated to the analysis of African Union's documents which enshrine responsibility to protect concept to the organization's politics. The third part analyses the South Sudanese civil war and is concerned with the role of African Union in the conflict resolution process in current South Sudan. Methodologically, it is an intrinsic case study and it is based on the analysis of African Union documents and relevant literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the evolution of the approach to humanitarian intervention that in the 21st century had been framed in the concept of Responsibility to Protect. The article focuses particularly on the possibility of adopting R2P rule in Africa, especially second and third pillar of this mechanism Various cases of conflict in Africa and other types of security threats are discussed herein; those which were actually implemented and situations where they were had to be foregone. This description serves the purpose of defining situations when the R2P mechanism is found useful in continental security measures as well as indicating the factors needed to implement it in practice, regardless of pure declarations from regional states and organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I present an account of mass atrocity prevention based on just war theory precepts. This account entails comparisons among policy options and requires selecting the politically feasible option that has the greatest chance of avoiding atrocities. Adopting such an account of atrocity prevention highlights problems in influential mass atrocity prevention policy reports in that they fail to seriously consider nonviolent civil resistance as a mass atrocity prevention tool. Given that sometimes actors may be unwilling to live under the status quo, and agitate for reform by violent or nonviolent means, nonviolence is generally the preferable policy option. This is because under realistic scenarios, the empirical evidence generally indicates that nonviolent means are more likely to achieve positive outcomes across a range of indicators than violent ones. I illustrate my argument by applying it to strategies for democratisation, and rebut objections. Yet, nonviolent civil resistance is risky, and so revolutionary leaders and their supporters should weigh carefully the chances of success and the trade-offs of nonviolent resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes an index to measure the extent to which governments authorise arms transfers to places in which human rights are violated. Levels of democracy in the purchasing country are used as a proxy for that country's degree of respect for human rights. The paper then applies this index to test whether Robin Cook's 'ethical dimension' in foreign policy was applied to British arms transfers, and concludes that this was indeed the case, although its legacy did not survive to the end of Tony Blair's government. This index should be useful for academics, civil society groups, government departments and international organisations working with human rights or arms transfers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay explores the intellectual context and conceptual foundations of R2P. Michael Walzer reinitiated debates about humanitarian intervention by grounding sovereignty and non-intervention in individual human rights and communal autonomy (self-determination). Liberal cosmopolitan critics of Walzer highlighted the tension between these two values, and proposed that sovereignty should rather be grounded in individual rights and democratic self-determination. In the post-Cold War era, international lawyers and international relations scholars came to endorse the idea that state sovereignty is qualified by the most basic human rights. High ranking UN officials further proposed that state sovereignty should be redefined as the sovereignty of the people, which, however, was seen as coextensive with the protection of the fundamental individual rights, and as such could be shared by the 'international community'. R2P adopted a similar approach, glossing over the potential tensions between sovereignty, self-determination and human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article conducts a normative evaluation of the American missile strike on a Syrian airbase in April 2017 to assess whether it could be described as a responsible action. Marking a departure from President Trump's 'America First' approach, the missile attack was incessantly justified by administration officials using the terminologies of 'rights' and 'responsibilities'. The article utilises the theoretical propositions of the English School of International Relations to clarify the three benchmarks of a responsible action: acting legally, legitimately and prudently. A detailed examination of the official statements and the global political developments surrounding the strike suggests that although the action cannot be justified on the grounds of legality, it may still be described as responsible on the grounds of legitimacy and prudence. On its own, the strike can serve as an example of responsible statecraft, although these findings cannot be applied to the rest of President Trump's foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the under-theorized dual-mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Convention was drafted in the wake of the Holocaust and other Nazi genocidal atrocities committed during World War II. The primary mission of the Genocide Convention was to establish a uniform definition of this scourge, and insert its prevention and punishment into the list of obligations states hold within the current international legal regime. Based on the past 70 years, it is clear that the international community has overwhelmingly failed to uphold the Genocide Convention's prevention mandate. The Convention and its signatories have been more successful in punishing perpetrators posthaste (e.g., the 1940s Nuremburg and Tokyo trials; the 1990s tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and the International Criminal Court). Eyeing the failure of the international community in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the Canadian government created the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that created the doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). The article argues that R2P has filled part of the gaps in the Genocide Convention and allowed states to take affirmative actions to prevent genocide in the modern era (e.g., Libya 2011). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whilst much has been written on emergence of new norms in international politics, we know significantly less about changes to the ideas and assumptions that underpin such norms. Examined at micro-level, most norms consist of a set of ideas and assumptions that form the basis of what is considered as appropriate, legitimate or even the required thing to do. Far from being stable, ideational constitutions of norms can undergo significant changes in the course of the norm emergence process. Enquiring into such changes is important if we are to move beyond static and linear accounts of norm evolution. Using changes in the ideational constitution of the responsibility to protect – specifically, the de-emphasis of the responsibility to rebuild – as its vantage point, the analysis seeks to answer the following question: what drives change in ideational constitutions of international norms? The chief argument advanced in this article is that misalignments at the level of broader normative structures (external misalignments) and within norms (internal misalignments) result in changes in the ideational constitutions of emerging norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China has been much more involved in Africa's economy and trade than in its security. However, over the past decade or so, China has increased its participation in the United Nation's Peacekeeping Operations (UN PKOs), particularly in Africa. It has also taken steps to better protect its overseas nationals and, in 2017, established a naval base in Djibouti. This article focuses on the participation of China's People's Liberation Army in the United Nation's Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) since 2013. It aims to unpack the diplomatic process that led China to take part in this mission and to analyse the form of this participation. Mali was the second time (the first being in South Sudan in 2012) that China opted to deploy combat troops under the UN banner, underscoring a deepening involvement in PKOs and an increasing readiness to face risks. Finally, this article explores the implications of China's participation in the MINUSMA for its foreign and security posture as a whole. Often perceived as a realist rising power, by more actively participating in UN PKOs China is trying to demonstrate that it is a responsible and “integrationist” great power, ready to play the game according to the commonly approved international norms. Is this really the case? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China's response to the recent Syria crisis at the UN Security Council represents a crucial case in China's approach to intervention in that it breaks from China's recent practice of becoming more permissive regarding intervention. Instead, China actively worked to ensure that a firm line was drawn to separate intervention from foreign-imposed regime change. It did so by employing three diplomatic innovations: exercising multiple, successive vetoes; expanding discourse to delegitimize intervention as “regime change” by Western powers; and engaging in norm-shaping of the international community's “responsibility to protect” post-intervention. Together, these three innovations highlight China's desire to firmly separate the intervention norm from that of regime change. Using a variety of primary sources, the article also draws insights from interviews with foreign policy elites in Beijing, New York and New Delhi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After defining the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and presenting a theoretical framework in the previous work, Human Security: from Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect (1) this article will step forward from theory to practice. In this respect, taking in consideration that R2P is an important milestone in understanding sovereignty, intervention, and human rights, I shall make an overview on how is it dealt in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's report and in the UN Secretary General report during the General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. The ICISS report was built on three dimensions of R2P - the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react and the responsibility to rebuild, meanwhile the UN Summit Outcome suggests that the R2P rests on three Pillars: Pillar one - The protection responsibilities of the State, Pillar two - International assistance and capacity-building and Pillar three - Timely and decisive response. Finally, a study case: Darfur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The responsibility not to veto is the idea that the Permanent Five at the UN Security Council should voluntarily refrain from using their veto in the event of atrocities. There are currently three veto-restraining initiatives, one of them from a P5 member, France. Despite its importance in diplomatic and UN circles, this debate has attracted little academic attention. This is partly because of the difficulty to access primary sources such as the details of the French proposal that circulated among the P5. Empirically focused and using diplomatic archives and experience, this article intends to fill such a gap. It provides the most detailed picture of the RN2V genealogy to date while offering a behind-the-scenes perspective on how the idea emerged and developed inside the French administration. It then unpacks the French strategy, its motivations and diplomatic efforts toward the P5, Group of 4, other states, and nongovernmental organizations, and eventually makes four recommendations for the initiative to have a chance of progressing among the Permanent Three. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the international community’s responsibility to protect (R2P) mandate, we are years away from effective international enforcement mechanisms. It is therefore important that we better understand and seek to support local capacities for self-protection. Migrants and refugees in Greece have shown us four central ways they cope with insecure environments. They stick together in groups, communicate warnings of danger, protest when conditions are threatening, and fight when all else fails. This practical note offers three recommendations on how to support the capacity of displaced people to protect themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the turn of the 21st century, there have been spirited campaigns to revise the concept of classical state sovereignty in favour of the international human rights doctrine. Leading theorists on the revision of the concept are Africans like Francis M. Deng and Kofi Annan. Deng and others developed the theory of sovereignty as responsibility which was adopted by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001. African leaders challenged the theory as they saw the classical adherence to state sovereignty as the last fortress against re-colonization. On the other hand, there has been considerable internal tyranny in Africa. This paper argues that the negation of classical state sovereignty threatens the achievement of full African development in the continent's diverse nature, and that internal tyranny is also a threat as it negates the values of African nationalism and independence, and invites external interference that will further divide African nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Now that the US-led intervention against the Islamic State in Syria is winding down, we would do well to begin to understand it. While critics of the intervention have long sensed that the US was proceeding on the basis of a novel legal theory, they have misinterpreted what that theory is. Far from seeking to lower the threshold of infringement of United Nations Charter (UNC) Article 2(4) to one of strict liability for "unable" Non-State-Actor (NSA) host States, the US militarily intervened in Syria on the basis of a theory of sovereigntyforfeiture according to which unable hosts that are deemed politically unworthy lose the right to consent to, and place conditions on, counter-NSA intervention by foreign states. This actual US theory represents a creative commingling of two threads of interventionist logic that once had seemed incompatible: Humanitarianism to deal with dictators and the Failed State Doctrine to deal with weak central State authorities. But is it consistent with existing international law or with basic notions of political-moral legitimacy? This article offers the first in-depth analysis of the "Commingled Position" in an attempt to answer these questions. Combining sympathy for an expansive reading of UNC Article 51 with a deep concern to safeguard the political equality and independence of NSA-host States, this article concludes that the Commingled Position is both legally deficient and--as deployed in Syria--morally untenable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the uprising in March 2011, Syrian people have been transformed from active protesters against the regime to desperate seekers of an asylum. The study highlights how callers for democracy became claimants of basic human dignity from the international community and examined how the responsibility to protect (R2P) could not be as effective as it should be to the Syrian case. This research work also focused on the unsuccessful examples of the other Arab fledgling democracies that had fallen prey to the same wave of revolt. More precisely, it concentrated on the Syrian crisis and how it turned to be a global battle field to provide an appropriate answer to the question about whether the R2P initiatives were to save Syrian people or to save the Syrian regime under the pretext of terrorism. Overall, this study displays the changing meaning of human values and lists the various techniques adopted by the international community to protect the superpowers best interests as the Security Council decides about Syria's future. The Syrian dilemma is far from being described as yet no clear end to people's suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of interest in the present work is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). I chose this theme by trying to define the concept and to offer a theoretical and comparative approach, making the correlation with the Humanitarian Intervention, in the framework of Human Security. In this respect, R2P becomes an important milestone in understanding sovereignty, intervention, and human rights. The doctrine addresses the responsibilities an individual state has to protect its populations from genocide, war and crimes against humanity, and also concerns the responsibility the international community has to intervene - even militarily - when a state neglects its duty. My goal is to consider the origins and likely trajectory of R2P, within the Human Security framework, from the narrow view, focusing on issues of human rights and the persecution of civilians during armed conflict, and the broad notion, maintaining the individual's protection during natural disasters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moral common sense frames the relationship between privileged and at-risk populations underpinning contemporary Responsibility to Protect (R2P) discourse. This article develops an alternative by considering the relationship between archetypes of would-be rescuers and victims through Jean Baudrillard’s theorisation of symbolic exchange. Baudrillardian analysis connects personal morality and affective intersubjective symbolic exchange with the politics of international order. This leads, first, to an argument that current foundations for advocating R2P risk participating in a problematic moral economy of symbolic exchange between would-be rescuers and victims. Nonetheless, and secondly, the article deploys symbolic exchange to develop suggestions for partially re-figuring R2P’s humanitarian impulse by engaging ‘locally’ - both through one’s self (in the ethical relation suggested by Emmanuel Levinas) and with diverse forms of political order (following Jacques Rancière’s conception of politics). Doing so supports moves to engage a wide array of individual actors in a more interactive and less hierarchical form of R2P, to drive deeper consideration of local complexities of R2P through engagement with diverse local forms of political order, and to develop a more inclusive understanding of ‘humanity’ in order to bolster R2P’s normative foundations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In today's world of devastation, largely due to armed conflicts and humanitarian tragedies, as well as to the phenomenon of terrorism - which has plagued societies from the East to the West - the role of states in fulfilling their obligations towards respecting, protecting and ensuring the realization of human rights figures prominently. As far as terrorist acts are concerned, there is no consensus on their possible inclusion in the very concept of "crimes against humanity", although some authors express their agreement of its inclusion. In view of the non-existence of a Convention on Crimes against Humanity, such international crimes - which have jus cogens status - create obligations for States, such as the obligation to investigate, punish and extradite. In this context, the Responsibility to Protect (or R2P) is also highlighted, as the state has the prime responsibility to protect the populations from crimes against humanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a widespread assumption that, given the imminent threat of mass atrocities against the Libyan civilians – especially in Benghazi – and in the absence of non-military alternatives, military action against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi was a justified and necessary response. This paper challenges this widespread assumption. It argues that on the eve of NATO-led military intervention, there was no ‘clear evidence’ to suggest that the Libyan regime was on the verge of committing mass atrocities against civilians. This research also documents the range of political and diplomatic options open to the international community to engage with Gaddafi, all of which were sidetracked in favour of military action. Despite the brutality of Gaddafi’s rule, military intervention in Libya did not meet the Responsibility to Protect’s (R2P) ‘just cause’ and ‘last resort’ criteria. Far from being a successful application of R2P’s most coercive pillar, the Libyan case was a manifest misapplication of R2P's military component. An objective analysis of the Libyan crisis during February and March 2011 should have prevented the use of military force. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]