Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book aims at the resolution of the dilemma regarding whether armed intervention as a response to gross human rights violations is ever legally justified without Security Council authorisation. Thus far, international lawyers have been caught between giving a negative answer on the basis of the UN Charter's rules ('positivists'), and a 'turn to ethics', declaring intervention legitimate on moral grounds, while eschewing legal analysis ('moralists'). In this volume, a third solution is proposed. The idea is presented that many equitable principles may qualify as 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations' - one of the three principal sources of international law (though a category that is often overlooked) - a conclusion based upon detailed research of both national legal systems and international law. These principles, having normative force in international law, are then used to craft an equitable framework for humanitarian intervention. It is argued that the dynamics of their operation allow them to interact with the Charter and customary law in order to fill gaps in the existing legal structure and soften the rigours of strict law in certain circumstances. It is posited that many of the moralists' arguments are justified, albeit based upon firm legal principles rather than ethical theory. The equitable framework proposed is designed to provide an answer to the question of how humanitarian intervention may be integrated into the legal realm. Certainly, this will not mean an end to controversies regarding concrete cases of humanitarian intervention. However, it will enable the framing of such controversies in legal terms, rather than as a choice between the law and morality.

Humanitarian intervention --- Equity --- Intervention (International law)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The volume is unique in both design and some of its entries, and in the mix of practitioners and scholars writing its chapters. Although there are numerous specialized works that treat the individual options, and several volumes explore the utility of these efforts in a single case study, there is currently no equivalent, recent work that treats under one cover the various third party options for influencing and managing the diverse forms of ethnic conflict.

Intervention (International law) --- Military intervention --- Diplomacy --- International law --- Neutrality

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

‘Responsibility to Protect and Prevent: Principles, Promises and Practicalities’ explores the evolution of responsibility to protect (R2P), a principle which – according to its supporters – has evolved into a new type of responsive norm for how the international community should react to serious and deliberate human rights violations. Arguing that the R2P ethos has been misunderstood and used ineffectively, this work defends the validity of R2P and urges for a more practical understanding that moves beyond theory. [NP] The progression of R2P from an initial concept to formal ratification has been a very difficult one, with a great deal of disagreement over its validity as a substantive norm in international affairs. The key disagreement is not that protection or prevention are unimportant, but rather how the fine-sounding R2P principles are supposed to work in practice. This volume presents a number of important arguments that are directly related to the state vs. human security debate, with a critical analysis of the nexus between the protection verses prevention theses. Through the case study of the Libyan Crisis, Janzekovic and Silander offer an example of the R2P thesis in action, and support the claim that prevention should be more than an adjunct to protection.

Responsibility to protect (International law) --- Humanitarian intervention. --- Humanitarian intervention --- Intervention (International law) --- International law --- Libya --- History

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Lässt sich der Einsatz militärischer Gewalt zum Schutz der Menschenrechte innerhalb fremder Staaten rechtfertigen? Die Arbeit beleuchtet die Frage nach der Rechtfertigung humanitärer Interventionen. Dazu werden Interventionsargumente in der Geschichte des politischen Denkens ausgehend von Wurzeln in Antike und Mittelalter über die Kriegsethik der spanischen Spätscholastik, das politische Denken der Neuzeit bis zur Kritik jeglicher Form von Interventionen vor dem Hintergrund der Dominanz des Souveränitätsprinzips im politischen Denken des 18. Jahrhunderts rekonstruiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund argumentiert der Autor dafür, dass die Souveränität der Staaten nicht unabhängig vom Schutz der grundlegenden Menschenrechte ihrer Bürger gedacht werden kann. Staaten haben eine primäre Verantwortung für den Schutz ihrer Bürger, die, wenn der einzelne Staat sie nicht erfüllt, als sekundäre Verantwortung auch der Staatengemeinschaft als Schutzverantwortung (responsibility to protect) zukommt und militärische Interventionen im Falle massiver Menschenrechtsverletzungen als letztes Mittel erlaubt.

Humanitarian intervention --- Sovereignty --- Philosophy --- History --- Political aspects --- Humanitarian intervention - Philosophy --- Humanitarian intervention - History --- Humanitarian intervention - Political aspects --- Sovereignty - Philosophy --- Philosophy. --- History. --- Political aspects. --- Human rights, sovereignty, military intervention.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

SEA-POWER--USA --- INTERVENTION (INTERNATIONAL LAW)--USA