Correspondence: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

Evans, Gareth; Thakur, Ramesh; Pape, Robert A.

doi:10.1162/isec_c_00119

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another major fault line is expressed by the fact that UN operational framework on Responsibility to Protect fails to address or restrain unilateral humanitarian intervention mostly undertaken by P5 member states. (Evans 2006: 41) The framework did not succeed in separating humanitarian necessities from strategic and geopolitical restrictions of UN permanent members of the Security Council. The inability of humanitarian intervention to meets its said objective cast doubt on the philosophical and legal framework of the policy To this far this paper ends up by underpinning that, it's apparently evident and no longer a question to investigate whether or not political ambitions are major pull factors for humanitarian intervention, rather the question now is how can this intersection be effectively manage to reflect a more humanize political ambition and an effective humanitarian action.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Teson 2001) It is argued that the pronouncement of the war on terror and U.S led military intervention in Iraq was a continuation and acceleration of the process to spread liberal values that gained wide recognition after the end of the cold world. (Evans, Thakur, & Pape, 2013;199) Indeed Michel Foucault's philosophy had earlier set the basis for liberal views on human rights protection to be enforced globally, he stated "Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone." (Foucault 1978) In the same line of thought the former British PM in 1991 claimed that war are being waged to protect values and not to protect territorial ambitions.…”

Section: The Rise Of Humanitarian Intervention As a Liberal Instrumenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases military intervention motivated by humanitarian concern transforms into a mission to overthrow a given regime. (Evans, Thakur, & Pape, 2013;199) The political outcomes of such interventions run counter to its original motives and stated principle. As such, geopolitical and strategic national interest has caused hugged problems of selectivity and double standards.…”

Section: Typical Problems Of Humanitarian Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect

Ngwa¹

2017

jisr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contends that, the concept of Humanitarian Intervention that gained wide recognition and acceptance in post-cold war era has lost its value and efficacy due to its inability to meet up with its stated objective in the wake of the recent humanitarian crisis in North African and the Middle East. This paper predominantly reflects on the liberal school of thought that informs the modern principle of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect. The analysis answers the question, "why has the concept of Humanitarian Intervention lost its value amidst recent human atrocities" The analysis cuts across four different cases of humanitarian intervention from 1990s up to date. The cases analyzed suggest that the concept has lost its value and efficacy mainly because military humanitarian intervention has been transformed into a liberal technique of global governance used by powerful states (mostly Permanent Security member states) to pursue their geopolitical and strategic national interest. The article ends by underpinning the need to device new modalities within the UN operational framework that would restrain the political will of P5 member states in matters of humanitarian concerns.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Rise Of Humanitarian Intervention As a Liberal Instrumenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Typical Problems Of Humanitarian Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect

Ngwa¹

2017

jisr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…70 However, this statement is problematic because as aforementioned the third pillar of the R2P incorporates more than just military intervention and alternative response measures should not be overlooked. 71 Furthermore,…”

Section: Secretary Williammentioning

confidence: 99%

Syria and the indicators of a ‘manifest failing’

Gallagher

2014

The International Journal of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1The on-going crisis in Syria helps Responsibility to Protect (R2P) analysts identify what evidence scholars and policymakers base judgements of a 'manifest failing' on. This is particularly relevant as the multifaceted crisis in Syria underlines the complexity and confusion that scholars and policymakers face when analysing overlap between atrocity crimes and armed conflict. The article draws on interdisciplinary research into mass violence in order to put forward five key indicators of a 'manifest failing' and applies them to Syria: i) government intentions, ii) weapons used, iii) death toll, iv) number of people displaced, and v) the intentional targeting of civilians, especially women, children and the elderly. In so doing, the article contributes to an emerging research agenda which may aid policymakers and scholars in their assessment of a 'manifest failing' but also has scope for helping those outside government to hold decision makers to account by creating a framework against which political [in]action can be judged.Keywords: Responsibility to Protect, manifest failing, government intentions, weapons used, death toll, number of people displaced, the intentional targeting of civilians, especially women, children and the elderly.

show abstract

“…According to Thakur (2013), R2P is victim-and people-centered; it puts the needs of the victims and potential victims ahead of the needs of the intervening states, whereas humanitarian intervention is deferential to the preferences and priorities of the intervening states. For Evans and Thakur (2013), the shift away from a right of humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect is exemplified by R2P's embrace of "a whole spectrum of preventive and reactive responses, with coercive military action reserved only for those extreme and exceptional cases" (p. 202). The shift in discourse is further buttressed by R2P's incorporation of its three core elements: (1) the responsibility to prevent; (2) the responsibility to react; and (3) the responsibility to rebuild.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

R2P’s “Ulterior Motive Exemption” and the Failure to Protect in Libya

Bachman

2015

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass atrocity prevention has been controversial, both when members of the international community have taken action as well as when they have failed to do so. In 1999, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged the international community to reconcile the need to respect state sovereignty with the need to protect populations from egregious human rights violations. R2P's emergence offered an opportunity to move past the discourse and practice associated with its predecessor-"humanitarian intervention." However, while R2P has succeeded in changing the discourse, it has failed to make a change in practice. A source of this failure is R2P's "ulterior motive exemption." Using the R2P intervention in Libya as a case study, this article concludes that because ulterior motives existed: (1) NATO's primary intent of civilian protection quickly evolved into the intent to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi; (2) in exceeding its mandate, NATO committed an act of aggression; (3) NATO continued to militarily support the rebels while they were committing war crimes and severe human rights violations; (4) NATO's actions resulted in civilian casualties, which NATO has refused to investigate; and (5) NATO abdicated its responsibility to protect Libyans from the human suffering that continued subsequent to Qaddafi's execution.

show abstract

Correspondence: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

Cited by 27 publications

References 3 publications

The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect

The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect

Syria and the indicators of a ‘manifest failing’

R2P’s “Ulterior Motive Exemption” and the Failure to Protect in Libya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About