Western analysis perceives Russian approaches to issues of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as running counter to western‐inspired international norms. This debate has surfaced with some vigour over Russia's policy in the Syria conflict where, in order to protect its strategic interests in Syria, an obstructionist Moscow has been accused of ignoring humanitarian considerations and allowing time for the Assad regime to crush the opposition by vetoing a resolution threatening to impose sanctions. While Russian approaches are undoubtedly explained by a desire to maximize its growing political influence and trade advantages to serve its legitimate foreign policy interests, and while Moscow's attitudes to intervention and R2P exhibit important differences from those of the major western liberal democracies, its arguments are in fact framed within a largely rational argument rooted in ‘traditional’ state‐centred international law. This article first highlights key arguments in the scholarly literature on intervention and R2P before going on to examine the evolution of Russian views on these issues. The analysis then focuses on the extent to which Moscow's arguments impact on international legal debates on the Libya and Syria conflicts. The article then seeks to explore how Russian approaches to intervention/R2P reflect fundamental trends in its foreign policy thinking and its quest for legitimacy in a negotiated international order. Finally, it attempts to raise some important questions regarding Russia's role in the future direction of the intervention/R2P debates.
This article contends that the Anglo-American military relationship is a vital yet neglected area of study. The British military have actively cultivated a relationship with the US military and its strength and durability help to account for the longevity of the broader so-called 'Special Relationship'. The article argues that the complexities of the military relationship can best be captured by the theoretical lens provided by Lowndes and Roberts that combines different strands of institutionalism to focus on rules, practices and narratives. The intense linkages between the US and UK have become routinized, enabling them to adapt their peacetime cooperation to conflicts, and thereby address post-Cold War security challenges such as peace enforcement, counterinsurgency and post-conflict stabilisation. The article draws upon semistructured interviews with senior military officers as well as policy documents to explore how these patterns of collaboration have become ingrained in patterns of both thinking and behaviour. The Anglo-American military relationship: institutional rules, practices and narratives
Este artículo examina el comportamiento de Rusia con respecto a los conflictos intraestatales en sus espacios regionales próximos a partir de 1990. La documentación existente atribuye la posición de Rusia principalmente a una extensión de su lógica de seguridad principal basada en el fomento de los intereses regionales hegemónicos. Aunque estos intereses no pueden ser ignorados, este artículo propone que la falta de aprendizaje institucional de Rusia de la doctrina y práctica de las operaciones de paz ha sido también un factor determinante, aunque descuidado, al dar forma a su respuesta ante los conflictos. Se argumenta que esto está integrado en un subconjunto persuasivo de lógicas de seguridad secundarias, basadas en la preocupación legítima por la seguridad y estabilidad regionales. Este análisis se basa en el cuestionamiento de los conflictos regionales en Georgia y Moldavia, puesto que ambos son los casos más reveladores de la experiencia de Rusia en operaciones de paz. El artículo concluye con unos breves comentarios sobre la crisis actual en Ucrania y cómo se relaciona esta con la reacción de Rusia al conflicto regional intraestatal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.