Search

The article "Intervention before interventionism" challenges the singular interpretation of the concept of intervention in International Relations (IR) and explores the diverse perspectives and historical contexts surrounding the practice. The author, Patrick Quinton-Brown, delves into the genealogy of intervention, highlighting the postcolonial sensibilities and normative debates that have shaped global governance. Through a critical examination of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and humanitarianism, the article uncovers the complex intersections of sovereignty, self-determination, and international solidarity in the global South's struggles against colonialism and imperialism. The text emphasizes the need to rethink intervention beyond traditional interventionist frameworks and to consider alternative interpretations that prioritize collective action, solidarity, and decolonization in shaping future global justice initiatives. [Extracted from the article]

The rapid global proliferation of smartphones and their associated information infrastructures has been a defining feature of the past decade's global crises. Yet, while the digital is now a topic of keen interest for scholars working on virtually everything that constitutes the international, the smartphone as an object of study in and of itself has been largely elusive. Moreover, emerging studies of contemporary crisis, such as 'polycrisis', often downplay the role of the digital. How can we conceptualize the ambiguity and ubiquity of the smartphone, as it impacts diverse fields of human action, from war to humanitarianism to democracy? And how can we empirically study this phenomenon and its distributed effects? We contend that smartphones are both embedded in and embed global crises. We conceptualize this as 'global crisis ecologies': new spaces that are not simply geographical, or easily framed in terms of North/South divisions, and that include the informational infrastructures that mediate the way crisis is apprehended. This framing helps us understand how multiple civilian, state and non-state actors at different societal levels participate in crises through everyday smartphone use. It foregrounds how the speed, audio-visual capabilities and inherent scalability of smartphones shape how crises are perceived and managed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, militaries have been highly visible elements in the response to health emergencies and in particular disease outbreaks. Although there has been a long tradition of civil–military collaboration in health, COVID–19 saw an unprecedented worldwide use of militaries which occurred within a permissive environment established by narratives of global health, humanitarian intervention and multi-sectorality. This creates a dilemma: militaries will likely be an important element in responding to a major health emergency and this risks not only militarizing health emergencies, but affects the balance between society and the military more generally. Moreover, the response to the COVID pandemic suggested that current emergency planning is often poorly prepared for the use of militaries in health crises, thereby reducing the effectiveness of a response. This article engages with how concerns over the securitization of health have evolved into concerns over militarization, and the question of how militaries might be used effectively in future health emergencies without risking the militarization of health or damaging civil–military relations more widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate on whether military humanitarian intervention and anti-atrocity norms, such as the responsibility to protect, cause perverse incentives, and provocative violence by a rebel group, has yet to reach a consensus. Specifically, existing theories are unable to fully explain why "emboldened" rebel groups provoke the government in some cases but not others. This paper reconciles this unresolved debate by arguing that it is not anti-atrocity norms but the temporary feasibility of humanitarian intervention that induces the potential rebel group to actually provoke the government. The inherent temporariness of the feasibility of large-scale intervention causes a commitment problem: An expectation of a temporary intervention shifts the balance of power toward a potential rebel and opens a quickly closing window of opportunity. A three-player game shows that, among other findings, a higher probability of humanitarian intervention alleviates the potential rebel's incentive to fight, implying that the criticism of anti-atrocity norms is a "false charge." The model also (i) explains why weaker groups can rebel in the shadow of external intervention and (ii) presents a novel implication that lowering the intervention cost can exacerbate the adverse incentive when a domestic commitment problem caused by the consolidation of government power is not severe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept of 'police peacekeeping' in United Nations peace operations, focusing on the case of Haiti and the MINUSTAH mission from 2004 to 2017. The author, Lou Pingeot, challenges the idea that police units are inherently pro-civilian and pro-democratic, highlighting how they can perpetuate marginalization, exclusion, and violence. Through empirical research and theoretical analysis, the article reveals how peace operations can reinforce global inequalities and social order, shedding light on the complexities and contradictions of international interventions. This critical examination of peacekeeping practices is essential for policymakers, researchers, and anyone interested in understanding contemporary global security dynamics and postcolonial power structures. [Extracted from the article]

In "The coloniality of humanitarian intervention," Patrick Vernon emphasizes the importance of race, racialization, and coloniality in queer analyses, developing a decolonial queer framework to challenge dominant understandings of development and progress. Vernon explores how UK House of Commons debates on humanitarian intervention reproduce colonial world-views and heteronormative logics, framing figures like the brutal dictator and ISIL terrorist as threats to British values. The book highlights the need to center queer questions of race and coloniality in research, offering a compelling contribution to queer International Relations and emphasizing the queering of racialized bodies through civilizational and developmental logics. [Extracted from the article]

NATO's involvement in Kosovo and its transformation from a military intervention to a UN-authorized peacekeeping operation has played a key role in the evolution of the alliance's strategic and political agenda. This article explores the importance of NATO's engagement with Kosovo in retrospect and in relation to the future outlook for European and global peace and security. It focuses on the centrality of this case for NATO's post-Cold War identity and as a key issue in the renewed political conflict associated with the transitional international order. We make three arguments. First, we argue that NATO's involvement in Kosovo has shaped and exacerbated the broader friction associated with the shifting international order. Second, we make the case that this engagement has played a key role in the strategic, political and operational development of NATO and its evolving identity. Thirdly, as a result of this, we argue that NATO's evolution and transformation in Kosovo was guided by what we call the logic of successful security practices. This entails making prudent political choices and implementing practical steps to harmonize divergent strategic interests among NATO members, adapting to shifting security circumstances, and upholding the organization's significance, credibility and influence both within and beyond the Euro-Atlantic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even as the protection of civilians becomes a widely held norm, there is substantial variation in public support for humanitarian policy efforts. We use a survey experiment in Sweden to gain insights into this puzzle. Our survey confirms that citizens generally support military, but particularly non-military, means of civilian protection. Yet, we also find that support is partly particularized. Specifying that civilians may have ties to extremist groups (as victims or supporters) reduces support for proposals to provide humanitarian aid, contribute to UN observer missions and accept refugees. We trace this reduced support to lower moral obligation and higher threat perceptions. In contrast to expectations, respondents do not prioritize the protection of co-nationals, or women and children. Manipulation checks suggest the explanation that perceptions of who constitutes a civilian are subjective. Our findings provide insights into the domestic political determinants of atrocity prevention abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens with data when the research process radically involves and engages those who are in the target group? How can we move towards collaborative insights by integrating our participants in the design of research, conduct of work, and, ultimately, its writing and dissemination? And how does this enable us to devise better futures when imagining such futures may be the very problem? Based on experimental research methods with Syrian refugee youth in Jordan, this article discusses how novel ways of engaging target groups in research can help push analyses in new directions. Collaborative methods, we argue, allow for 3 general analytical displacements that may help us work through the protracted nature of much humanitarian intervention and aid work: namely, moves from worldmaking to waymaking, from urgency to discernment, and from the biological to the biographical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Benjamin Meiches's book, "Nonhuman humanitarians," challenges the anthropocentric nature of the humanitarian system by exploring the role of animals in humanitarian practice. The book provides an overview of the history, players, ethical dilemmas, and global politics of humanitarianism. It also offers case studies on explosive detection dogs, mine detection rats, and milk-producing animals to analyze their contributions to aid efforts. While the book is highly theoretical and lacks empirical evidence, it provides a unique perspective on interspecies labor and dynamics in conflict environments. Overall, it offers a refreshing view of humanitarianism and encourages reflection on the shared operations of humans and animals. [Extracted from the article]

To what extent can prospect theory's framing effects and elite and social group cues moderate public support for humanitarian interventions? This study extends the research on public support for humanitarian interventions by capturing the interaction between prospect theory's framing effects and elite and social group cues on individuals' willingness to support risky foreign policies. The study incorporates four novel prospect theory decision problems while framing the expected costs as nonequivalent intervals across interventions and US–China trade war scenarios. The results provide evidence that prospect theory framing effects outperform the elite and social group cues in their ability to induce preference shifts among respondents' willingness to support risk-acceptant or risk-averse humanitarian intervention plans. It also suggests that humanitarian interventions, with US troops on the ground, in a region noncentral for America's national security, retain substantial levels of support among Americans despite their country's changing role in international security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the contemporary digital age, mass atrocity crimes are increasingly promoted and organized online. Social media, encrypted chatrooms and messaging apps have been employed (by regimes and non-state actors alike) to stoke racial and political division, recruit sympathizers and facilitate atrocities. At the same time, there is increasing evidence of the power and promise of offensive cyberspace operations in conflict. Despite the parallel attention afforded to atrocity prevention and cyber operations (respectively), the overlap between these two scholarly investigations is thin. In fact, almost no attention has been afforded to the question of whether proactive cyberspace operations might be used for human protection purposes—specifically, to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. In this article, I introduce the concept of 'cyber humanitarian interventions'—the use of sophisticated cyber operations to frustrate perpetrators' means and motivations for mass atrocities—as a new tool in the atrocity prevention toolbox. This article therefore seeks to initiate a research agenda that considers how cyber humanitarian interventions could be used for human protection in the twenty-first century. Such an investigation is particularly timely and policy relevant, as international responses to violence have been mixed, and—in the absence of political will for costly armed military interventions—many atrocities continue unabated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent discussions of humanitarian intervention in international relations (IR) have often focused on the evolution of norms, and the development and contestation of the responsibility to protect (R2P) framework. While beneficial in tracing this process, most of these studies tend not to incorporate an analysis of colonialism, race, sexuality, or gender. While postcolonial studies of humanitarian intervention have done well to illustrate the relationship between humanitarian intervention and colonial violence, they still tend to neglect the study of sexuality and gender. Exploring how the sexualized, gendered, and racialized dimensions of colonialism can be incorporated into the study of humanitarian intervention, this paper proposes a queer approach. After exploring the valuable contributions of feminist scholarship, it suggests that the queer approaches of Nicola Pratt ("The Queen Boat Case in Egypt: Sexuality, National Security and State Sovereignty," Review of International Studies 33, no. 1 [2007]: 129–44), Cynthia Weber (Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, Sexuality and the Will to Knowledge. New York, Oxford University Press, 2016), and Laura Shepherd and Laura Sjoberg ("Trans- Bodies in/of War(s): Cisprivilege and Contemporary Security Strategy," Feminist Review 101, no. 1 [2012]: 5–23) offer some distinct contributions that build upon feminist insights. Applying these to the 2015 House of Commons debate on airstrikes against ISIL, the paper suggests that queer IR can invigorate the study of humanitarian intervention with a framework that unpacks the simultaneously gendered, sexual, and racial dimensions of colonial violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As forensic humanitarian and forensic human rights anthropology has continued to evolve, an ongoing concern in the field is meaningful engagement with survivors and the imperative to do no harm. For forensic anthropologists attempting to engage in grassroots forensic intervention, unaffiliated with an international investigation, means for effectively accessing and engaging communities has not been widely discussed. Here, forensic anthropologists draw on multiple, cross-cultural contexts to discuss methods and techniques for introducing forensic partnerships to communities. To do this, the scientist must consider their positionality as well as that of the stakeholders, develop effective local relationships, and consider a community-grounded approach. This paper argues that drawing on broader cultural anthropological training, ultimately informs one's ability to gain entry into at-risk and vulnerable communities while minimizing harm. To illustrate this point, examples are drawn from Canada, Uganda, Cyprus, and Somaliland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article speaks to debates in international political sociology that critically interrogate the ongoing digitization of border controls through the deployment of surveillance technologies that render mobility intelligible and governable. Our contribution to these debates is both empirical and conceptual. Empirically, we explore not only how surveillance is enacted but also how it is contested and fails to meet its stated objectives. We do so by focusing on two technologies that support the visibilization of maritime borderzones and mobilities: satellites and drones. Conceptually, our contribution revolves around the kinopolitical character of maritime surveillance and the productive power of technologically mediated vision. We synthesize Nail's work on kinopolitics with ideas inspired by Foucauldian studies on governmentality to develop the following argument: satellites and drones are technologies of power embedded within a kinopolitical regime of maritime surveillance, which strategizes vision in attempts to govern subjects and objects on the move—attempts that challenge any clear-cut distinction between security controls and humanitarian interventions in the field of border management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the promises and pitfalls of using ethnographic methods to analyze global politics in turbulent times. Ethnography has not gone unnoticed by international relations (IR) scholars, but the method remains at the fringes of the discipline. While acknowledging more recent feminist and practice theorist contributions to ethnographic research in IR, this paper brings together contemporary research across diverse issue areas, ranging from humanitarian intervention to transnational migration, to ask about ethnography's larger contribution to understanding global politics: What kinds of knowledge does ethnography produce about IR? In what ways might ethnography, informed by local perspectives, challenge top-down approaches to the study of IR? We identify three primary justifications for ethnographic methods based on different, though overlapping, forms of knowledge that they can uncover: tacit knowledge, marginalized knowledge, and subversive knowledge. We acknowledge issues that complicate access, and we warn that ethnographers are far from immune to the imperialist arrogance of mainstream methodologies. Ultimately, we call for reflexive scholarship to navigate the international politics of a "post-truth" and post-Covid world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the structural conditions within the jus ad bellum that affect whether and how that law changes. In particular, it examines how the diversity of the rules that form the law relating to the use of force affects the development of rules permitting the use of force to protect human rights. After noting some areas where it has been argued that aspects of the law relating to use of force have changed as a result of evolving state practice, it identifies a number of obstacles to accepting the argument that changes to customary international law can affect the law on the use of force in the UN Charter. It is argued that, unlike with self-defence, changes to customary international law would not automatically lead to changes in the Charter prohibition of the use of force. Since any rule permitting humanitarian intervention would create a new exception to the Charter prohibition of the use of force and to a norm of jus cogens, that change cannot occur on the basis of custom alone. Changes to interpretations of the UN Charter and to a jus cogens norm will be required, and such changes must occur in line with the rules regarding how such norms change. Finally, the article considers one concrete possibility for a change to the jus ad bellum that would allow humanitarian intervention without UN Security Council approval: approval of such a use of force by the UN General Assembly under the 'Uniting for Peace' Resolution of 1950. Leaving aside the political and practical challenges of achieving such change, the section explores the conceptual challenges that would need to be overcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Orthopedic trauma is a significant portion of global burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This has led the World Health Organization to advocate for increased surgical intervention in LMICs. The two largest barriers to orthopedic surgical care for LMICs are cost of procedure and geographic access to centers with appropriate surgical capabilities. There is no current consensus on how to structure surgical interventional teams. The overall objective of this study is to describe the composition of a forward surgical team (FST), including its abilities and limitations. It is hypothesized that an FST is an effective model for orthopedic surgical relief efforts in LMICs.Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis standards published by the National Academies of Medicine. Studies were evaluated by structured review procedures to identify an FST's capacity for orthopedic surgery, as well as applicability for humanitarian care. Articles detailing FST logistics, types of orthopedic treatment provided, and instances of humanitarian care while deployed in austere environments were included for review.Results: The FST is a military surgical unit operating with a small crew of surgeons and supporting staff who use tents or trailers that can be positioned near points of conflict, often in remote or austere environments. FSTs were designed to treat traumatic injuries, including orthopedic trauma from RTIs. If used as a sponsored humanitarian aid mission, FSTs can provide surgical care at free or greatly reduced costs. Because FSTs carry limited supplies and personnel, they are highly mobile surgical units that can be transported via truck.Conclusion: FSTs are effective models for humanitarian orthopedic surgery in LMICs. FSTs were designed to treat orthopedic trauma, the largest burden of orthopedic care in LMICs. Efficient use of limited equipment allows FSTs to be cost effective for funding sources and highly mobile to reduce the geographic barrier to care. Further research is needed to determine the cost to operate an FST and ethical consideration for military intervention for foreign humanitarian aid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many modern conflicts, from Iraq to Yemen, have emerged as brutal wars in which state and non-state actors directly and indirectly target a wide array of civilian infrastructures, including water, energy and food systems. Similar to many twentieth-century wars, a common feature of the wars in the Middle East and North Africa in the twenty-first century has been the 'civilianization' of war, as civilian casualties far outnumbered battlefield deaths. We explore the targeting of civilian infrastructures in the Yemeni war (2011–2019) to explicate the connections between conflict, hunger and disease. We draw upon interviews with UN and humanitarian organizations, an original database tracking civilian infrastructure destruction, and a variety of print sources to document the extent and spatial distribution of the targeting of water, energy, agricultural and health systems in Yemen. We elucidate how the conduct of the Yemeni war has undermined human security and livelihoods and has created ethical, logistical and organizational challenges for humanitarian organizations and for advancing peacebuilding efforts. We find that after the 2011 popular uprising, some non-state actors targeted the energy sector; however, the scope and intensity of wartime targeting of civilian objects, particularly those associated with agriculture, fisheries and health, increased significantly once the Saudi-led coalition entered the war in 2015. Loss of livelihoods, internal displacement, currency depreciation, and blockades and sieges further intensified the wartime spread of hunger and disease. The targeting of civilian infrastructures significantly hinders peacebuilding efforts to restore basic services, rebuild livelihoods and strengthen governance mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea of the hierarchical superiority of jus cogens norms in relation to all other norms or actions has gained track. Hence, today, the widely held view is that even decisions of the Security Council cannot contravene imperative norms. This runs counter to the indispensable powers of this organ to do whatever it takes to maintain peace. The argument is that the Security Council can, in the face of a threat or breach of peace, one that, in extremis , has the potential to eradicate the human race, take or authorise necessary action even if this action collides with jus cogens. Such decisions of the Security Council may target every single world entity or individual. Moreover, the world peace body can also legislate and create peremptory norms that are binding upon the whole world. This Article fleshes out the constitutional framework in which the exercise of these powers should be understood and uses as illustrations the old alleged right of humanitarian intervention and the new jus cogens crime of terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, drawing on the work of the development sociologist Norman Long, I make the case for an actor-oriented approach to understanding the 'turn to religion' by global aid actors over the past couple of decades. I ask, is the 'turn to religion' evidence of the emergence of post-secular partnerships or are faith actors being instrumentalized to serve neo-liberal development goals? I argue that neither option captures the whole story and advocate that the study of religion and development needs to move beyond a binary between the 'turn to religion' as either evidence of post-secular partnerships or of the 'instrumentalization' of religion by the secular global aid business, and instead to think about how faith actors themselves encounter and shape development discourses and frameworks, translate them into relevant formats and strategically employ them. Alongside the adoption of an actor-orientated approach, I build on the work of Lewis and Mosse, Olivier de Sardan and Bierschenk to view international faith-based organizations (IFBOs) as development brokers and translators. This approach allows me to articulate the distinctive role that many members of IFBOs report they play as intermediaries who shift register between the secular development language and the faith-inspired language of their local faith partners. I take the engagement of faith actors with the new Sustainable Development Goals framework as a case-study to explore this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The costly nature of health sector responses to humanitarian crises and resource constraints means that there is a need to identify methods for priority setting and long-term planning. One method is economic evaluation. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the use of economic evaluations in health-related humanitarian programmes in low- and middle-income countries. This review used peer-reviewed literature published between January 1980 and June 2018 extracted from four main electronic bibliographic databases. The eligibility criteria were full economic evaluations (which compare the costs and outcomes of at least two interventions and provide information on efficiency) of health-related services in humanitarian crises in low- and middle-countries. The quality of eligible studies is appraised using the modified 36-question Drummond checklist. From a total of 8127 total studies, 11 full economic evaluations were identified. All economic evaluations were cost-effectiveness analyses. Three of the 11 studies used a provider perspective, 2 studies used a healthcare system perspective, 3 studies used a societal perspective and 3 studies did not specify the perspective used. The lower quality studies failed to provide 7information on the unit of costs and did not justify the time horizon of costs and discount rates, or conduct a sensitivity analysis. There was limited geographic range of the studies, with 9 of the 11 studies conducted in Africa. Recommendations include greater use of economic evaluation methods and data to enhance the microeconomic understanding of health interventions in humanitarian settings to support greater efficiency and transparency and to strengthen capacity by recruiting economists and providing training in economic methods to humanitarian agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Protection of Civilians (PoC) in peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from atrocity crimes are two norms that emerged at the turn of the new millennium with the aim of protecting vulnerable peoples from mass violence and/or systematic and widespread violations of human rights. To date, most scholars have analysed the discourses over the status, strength and robustness of both norms separately. And yet, the distinction between the two has at times been exceptionally fine. In this article, we analyse the constitutive relationship between PoC and R2P, and the impact of discursive and behavioural contestation on their joint evolution within the UN system and state practice over three phases (1999–2005; 2006–10; 2011–18). In so doing, we contribute to the International Relations literature on norms by illuminating ideational interplay in the dynamics of norm evolution and contestation. More specifically, we illustrate how actors may seek to strengthen support for one norm, or dimension of a norm, by contrasting it or linking it with another. Our analysis also reveals that while the two norms of R2P and PoC were initially debated and implemented through different institutional paths and policy frameworks, discursive and behavioural contestation has in more recent years brought them closer together in one important respect. The meaning ascribed to both norms—by representatives of states and institutions such as the United Nations—has become more state-centric, with an emphasis on building and strengthening the capacity of national authorities to protect populations. This meaning contrasts with the more cosmopolitan origins of R2P and PoC, and arguably limits possibilities for the external enforcement of both norms through any form of international authority that stands above or outside sovereign states. This article forms part of the special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs on 'The dynamics of dissent', guest-edited by Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State and non-state actors across many protracted conflicts and prolonged occupations in the Middle East and North Africa have systematically targeted civilian infrastructures. We use the cases of the West Bank and Gaza, characterized by more than five decades of occupation and periods of intermittent violent conflict, to analyse how the targeting of water, energy, and agricultural infrastructures has created humanitarian crises and undermined civilian livelihoods. Our analysis draws upon an original database tracking the targeting of environmental and civilian infrastructures and on interviews with humanitarian organizations, government officials and civil society actors. The analysis shows how the targeting of infrastructure has differed in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the West Bank, damage to essential infrastructure and restrictions on infrastructure development are forms of slow violence that accumulate over time, carried out by both state authorities and settlers. In the Gaza Strip, recurrent violent conflict between Israel and Hamas has produced extensive destruction across all types of infrastructure, while the internationally-sanctioned blockade has hindered effective reconstruction. In both cases agriculture is the most frequently targeted sector, undermining livelihoods and connections to land, while damage to water and energy systems has limited economic activity and rendered civilian life increasingly precarious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights professionals are significant actors in international institutions, humanitarian interventions, and other dimensions of global governance. Despite their significance, they remain part of an under-researched global elite of international expert practitioners. This article explores the challenges of conducting transnational research involving human rights professionals in exploring the networks of institutions, actors and relationships in human rights fieldwork. It raises practical and methodological issues related to research relationships, access to participants and information, and the larger contexts of geopolitical and structural power. Using insights from human rights professionals themselves, it illuminates questions of expertise, identity and location, as well as the mediating roles of texts and technology in the research and in the network of practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studying interfaces directs attention to the processes through which an array of social actors and regimes come into a constellation of relations and create webs of connection that impact humanitarian intervention and the lives of displaced people. This article illuminates the politics of humanitarianism evinced during Kachin internal displacement at the China–Myanmar border. Since 2011, conflict between the Myanmar (Burma) military and Kachin separatists has precipitated internal displacement in northern Myanmar. Apart from the Kachin struggle for autonomy, a resource war is also fuelling the conflict. Many internally displaced people (IDPs) flock to the China–Myanmar border for safety, but those that try to cross the border into China are barred by the Chinese police. The interfaces examined here reveal the constraints posed during the delivery of humanitarian aid, but also signal the connections that bring displaced populations and an array of social groups together, while keeping in view the global power geometries through which such connections are forged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The crude death rate (CDR) is one of the defining indicators of humanitarian emergencies. When data from vital registration systems are not available, it is common practice to estimate the CDR from household surveys with cluster-sampling design. However, sample sizes are often too small to compare mortality estimates to emergency thresholds, at least in a frequentist framework. Several authors have proposed Bayesian methods for health surveys in humanitarian crises. Here, we develop an approach specifically for mortality data and cluster-sampling surveys.Methods: We describe a Bayesian hierarchical Poisson-Gamma mixture model with generic (weakly informative) priors that could be used as default in absence of any specific prior knowledge, and compare Bayesian and frequentist CDR estimates using five different mortality datasets. We provide an interpretation of the Bayesian estimates in the context of an emergency threshold and demonstrate how to interpret parameters at the cluster level and ways in which informative priors can be introduced.Results: With the same set of weakly informative priors, Bayesian CDR estimates are equivalent to frequentist estimates, for all practical purposes. The probability that the CDR surpasses the emergency threshold can be derived directly from the posterior of the mean of the mixing distribution. All observation in the datasets contribute to the estimation of cluster-level estimates, through the hierarchical structure of the model.Conclusions: In a context of sparse data, Bayesian mortality assessments have advantages over frequentist ones already when using only weakly informative priors. More informative priors offer a formal and transparent way of combining new data with existing data and expert knowledge and can help to improve decision-making in humanitarian crises by complementing frequentist estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why and how did a new type of intervention, intended to prevent rulers from punishing individuals for their religious beliefs and justified using natural law, emerge in England during the first decade of the eighteenth century? This article traces its origins to the War of the Spanish Succession, when Huguenot publicists and diplomats petitioned English politicians to negotiate freedom for Huguenot prisoners in France. In campaigning for prisoners’ freedom rather than for the restoration of Huguenot corporate rights in France, Huguenot publicists and diplomats had to justify intervention in universalising, non-confessional terms. Because those prisoners were not protected by treaty law, the laws of war, or the laws of France, they cited Protestant and humanist traditions of natural law and theories of natural sociability to justify negotiating their release. In so doing, they invited European readers, politicians and monarchs to sympathise with distant strangers—and even to take political action on their behalf—not only because they shared a common faith, but also because they belonged to human society and shared a common humanity. These arguments circulated both in print and among European diplomats, altering the conduct of international affairs. In England, this article shows, Huguenot campaigns influenced debates about intervention and English foreign policy-making. Thus, this article suggests a new narrative for the diffusion of humanitarian argument in eighteenth-century western European political culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how the humanitarian presence and programs in the disputed border area of Abyei between Sudan and South Sudan can be understood as a buffer between conflicting parties, rather than as mere assistance to a displaced population. It aims to contribute to debates about the spatial impact of humanitarian governance and the politicization of aid in protracted crisis contexts, and specifically in relation to territorial disputes and border struggles. It is based on ethnographic fieldwork in South Sudan between 2011 and 2013. The article argues that the humanitarian response became part of the politics of belonging that lies at the heart of the dispute. The very acts of labelling, categorizing, and maintaining the subjects of aid are highly political, such as the creation of the category of the ‘people of Abyei’ in contrast to refugees or Internally Displaced People. As a result, the interventions have sustained governance over the territory and can be understood as a humanitarian buffer that may shape the border area of Abyei for many years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years claims about the end times of the liberal world order have gathered force, with the talk of order giving way to disruption. While there are different accounts of these disruptive dynamics and their causes, it is nevertheless a rare moment in International Relations when all mainstream theories concur that the hegemony of the liberal world order is over and that there is considerable uncertainty about the global architecture that will take its place. Yet claiming that the liberal world order is in trouble is just a starting-point--a deeper account is needed to show how each interrelated element 'hangs together'. We examine two interrelated patterns to liberal world ordering--internationalism and imperialism. After unpacking each of these interrelated ideas which constitute liberal world order, the narrative will focus on the politics and practice of humanitarianism. Humanitarianism is, of course, deeply intertwined with liberal assumptions about an ethic of care for peoples who are either at risk of, or worse still suffering from, large-scale natural disasters and politically-induced atrocities. Our inference is that the condition of humanitarianism provides a good indication of the state of the liberal world order--its limits and possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to offer some reflections on how to interpret the International Criminal Court (ICC)' s fractious relationship with Africa in the context of the historical lineage of a dual structure of the global constitutional order and further scrutinize its implications for life cycles of the international norm. First, we begin by setting out the ICC process (norm emergence) led by middle power sand global civil society during the early post-Cold War period. We then scrutinize the limits of this new normative order by focusing on its dualistic nature, as well as the asymmetrical relation between the Global North and the Global South, in particular African countries. Finally, we reexamine the remaining injustice issue inherent in the liberal normative order by paying attention to structural problems such as the predatory capitalism behind the serious humanitarian crisis, which international judicial interventions seem to have superficially mask. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article illustrates how Brazil responded to the policy challenges its foreign policy activism posed for its engagement with a fundamental question of the international order: the tension between the protection of human rights and the prohibitions on intervention and the use of force. Leading the military component of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) implicated accepting the mission's robust mandate that contradicted Brazil's traditional foreign policy positions. Notwithstanding this apparent contradiction, the country's diplomats also tried to shape UN debates on intervention norms, resulting inter alia in the 'responsibility while protecting' initiative. By analysing diplomatic efforts and military actions on the ground, we argue that since the watershed moment of becoming the most influential troop contributor to MINUSTAH, interests and actions of the armed forces increasingly contradict the efforts of Brazil's diplomatic establishment. The influence of Brazil's diplomacy in shaping intervention norms has proved to be rather elusive, compared with its military's palpable role in developing robust approaches for peacekeeping mandates revolving around the protection of civilians. Yet we argue that this apparent contradiction should not be seen as inconsistency. Instead, the case of Brazil shows typical signs of the 'graduation dilemma', in which both diplomats and military behaved in an eminently rational fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been an attempt to redefine the meaning of sovereignty in international legal discourse in the post-Cold War era. This attempt was essentially necessitated by a series of high-profile instances (including Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur) in which the United Nations/international community was seen as doing too little or (occasionally) too much when faced with grave humanitarian emergencies. Accordingly, sovereignty, one of the foundational principles of international law, came to be interpreted as a two-way street conferring rights on States, while at the same time imposing a set of duties on them. This idea is couched in the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (or as it has come to be known--R2P) which was formally endorsed at the UN World Summit 2005. The UN Security Council has invoked this doctrine numerous times in its resolutions over the years. Against this background, the central aim of this article is to examine the legal status of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect under international law. While claiming that R2P is a new face of the old liberal doctrine of humanitarian intervention, the article will argue that R2P is neither a law nor a legally binding framework and that there are grave ambiguities in terms of its specific normative contents. It will demonstrate that R2P (at the very least its military aspects) does not enjoy consensus either in principle or in practice, and that its international legal implications are not immediately clear. From this analysis the article would conclude that R2P is yet to find its legal feet in the practice of States, particularly the Asian-African States and that if the international community is to take human suffering seriously and address it with timely and effective collective action, democratization of the Security Council should take place as a matter of urgent priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent scholarship indicates that gender correlates strongly with Americans' attitudes toward the use of military force. However, most of its evidence derives from the study of major wars, and the field needs more historical research to evaluate the evolution of gender difference over time. I redress these limitations by updating and extending my earlier (2003) analysis of public support for the use of force during the 1990s. I analyze 965 individual survey questions concerning the use of US military force in twenty-four historical episodes, beginning in 1982 with military aid to El Salvador and continuing through the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I find that substantial gender difference characterizes a large number of historical episodes and types of military action. Nonetheless, the magnitude of gender difference varies substantially; in many cases, a substantial percentage of women supports the use of force. The difference between men and women varies most with the salience and level of violence, and women are more sensitive to humanitarian concerns. Women display more sensitivity to casualties in some historical cases, but during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the casualty sensitivity of men gradually increased as the wars dragged on, and gender differences therefore decreased. Thus, I argue that scholars should turn their attention to studying individual-level differences between and among men and women in support for using military force. I also discuss the political and policy implications of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the fifteen years since the publication of the report 'The Responsibility to Protect' by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, there has been a burgeoning literature on all aspects of R2P. This review article focuses on five issues. First, it revisits the shift from 'humanitarian intervention' to R2P as the key innovation in 2001, highlighting the political, conceptual, normative, procedural and operational differences between the two. Second, it examines the state of knowledge regarding the causes of atrocities; the institutional vulnerabilities and points of resilience; the pathways from simmering animosities to mass killings; the indicators and precursors; and the most effective preventive and response mechanisms. Third, it reviews the unsatisfactory state of R2P implementation. Fourth, it discusses the main R2P actors, from international organizations and key groups of states to individuals. Finally, it addresses the continuing scepticism about R2P, in that it does not resolve all the dilemmas of how outsiders can provide timely, decisive and effective assistance to any group in need of protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After being initially drafted in 2001 by an expert body--the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty--the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) doctrine has eventually found its way into the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome document, thereby replacing a morally controversial doctrine of "humanitarian intervention". The paper aims, first, to point out how these two doctrines are different ethical projects. Second, recognizing that it is safer to say that the doctrine has not become a principle of law, this paper tries to situate it within the prevalent value of the international rule of law. It does so by exploring two somewhat contrasting conceptions--one more substantive in nature, which takes individuals as ultimate beneficiaries of this value, and the other, more formal in nature, which puts states in the forefront. The R2P case shows, however, that neither of them can be advanced to the full extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the benefits of a gendered human security perspective on the issue of humanitarian action in internally displaced person (IDP) and refugee protection. It argues that a thorough analysis along the human security dimensions (economic, food, health, environment, personal, community, and political) strengthens our understanding of the gender dimension in the context of forced displacement. Based on an analysis of guidelines and humanitarian policy documents in the area of IDP and refugee protection, it shows that understanding not only gender specific needs but also the underlying gender relations is of importance, as these relations can be altered during displacement or as a consequence of humanitarian interventions. Moreover, the intersection of gender with other indicators creating vulnerability and insecurity (such as age, sexuality, race, religion, class and ethnicity) need to be addressed. This requires the collection of disaggregated data and a structural gender-sensitive analysis of the multilayered human security situation on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 'The Limits of Legality and the United Nations Security Council: Applying the Extra-Legal Measures Model to Chapter VII Action', Devon Whittle analogizes the United Nations Security Council's Chapter VII powers to domestic emergency powers. He then seeks to apply the extra-legal measures (ELM) model of emergency powers, which I developed some 20 years ago, to exercise by the Council of its Chapter VII powers. This brief comment seeks to expand the discussion of ELM in international affairs beyond the collective security system by exploring the application of ELM in the setting of unilateral humanitarian intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on interventions in the internal affairs of the territorial princes of the Holy Roman Empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially when such interventions were justified by the need to protect persecuted mediate subjects. It aims to show how intervention against tyrannical rule was perceived and conceptualized by contemporaries, and to thereby add insights into the normative underpinning of the system of rule in the Empire. By analysing two case-studies in some detail, the interventions in Nassau-Siegen (1705–1707) and Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1714–1719), the article documents aspects of the mindset of statesmen and the public with regard to intervention, in order to discern normative judgements and perceptions. It is argued that perceived tyranny—in other words, the mistreatment of subjects through violence and violations of their recognized rights—could, in legal theory and in state practice, lead to military interventions. A discourse against tyranny and arbitrary rule is evident not only in public statements, but also in private comment. Interventions were largely justified legalistically given the high degree of juridification of the Empire’s political culture. But there was also the strong moral element of a duty to conform to and enforce notions of civilized and Christian conduct. While legal and moral incentives were sufficient to enable interventions against petty tyrants, these would have to coincide and combine with pressing politico-strategic interests in order to allow interventions against more substantial rulers. Such interventions were often deemed necessary in order to restore geopolitical stability. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The global issue of humanitarian intervention has become more pronounced and complicated in recent years due to increasingly diverging views on addressing security crises between the West on one side and Russia and China on the other. Despite their support for the principles of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P), both Russia and China are wary of Western intervention in internal conflicts after the Cold War and have become increasingly critical of Western-led armed intervention in humanitarian conflicts. Unease in Beijing and Moscow over the multilateral intervention in the 2011 Libyan conflict and their ongoing opposition to Western policies in the Syrian Civil War since 2011 would seem to point to ever more coincidence in their negative views of American and Western intervention policies. A conventional wisdom has thus emerged that there is something akin to a Sino–Russian ‘bloc’, with near-identical policies of discouraging armed intervention within state borders under the aegis of humanitarian intervention or the R2P doctrine, signed in 2005 (2005 World Summit). However, closer examination of Russian and Chinese positions on the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, drawing on normative and identity perspectives, reveals significant differences in how both states address intervention in civil conflicts involving human rights emergencies. Indeed, the Libyan and Syrian cases suggest that the distance between the two states on ‘acceptable’ policies toward international intervention in civil conflicts may actually be increasing. While Russia has assumed the role of the ‘loud dissenter’ in global dialogs on humanitarian intervention, China has opted for the position of a ‘cautious partner’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author expresses his opinion on the notion of failed States and the challenges it pose to international law and international community. Topics discussed by the author include the characteristic features of failed States, how to ensure the human rights of people living in failed States, and the proposed solution to State failure, such as using the work of the United Nations Peace Building Commission, use of transitional territorial administration, and humanitarian intervention.

This paper examines the role of humanitarian intervention as a tool of foreign policy in the Conservative-led Coalition. The first section of the paper provides historical context and assesses the traditional approaches to humanitarian intervention as an instrument of foreign policy of Conservative governments since the end of the Cold War. This analytical narrative considers the Major Government's response to the Bosnian War. The second section of the paper considers the Conservative-led Coalition's approach to humanitarian intervention in two ways: first by an examination of the influence of Blair's humanitarian intervention and secondly, by an evaluation of British involvement in the Libyan Revolution of 2011. The third and final section of the paper offers an explanatory interpretation of the Conservative-led Coalition's humanitarian intervention. This interpretation is predicated on an English School theoretical framework for understanding international relations and, in particular, advances the argument that the global worldview of David Cameron, William Hague and their liberal Conservative colleagues can be understood as solidarist. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The articles in this symposium examine Conservative Party politics in Coalition between 2010 and 2013, considering a number of key issues that have presented notable ideological and strategic challenges to the party leadership. These include the issue of European integration; managing territorial relations within the United Kingdom; the principle of humanitarian intervention in foreign policy; the debate over human rights; and party management concerns and electoral strategy. Together, the articles help to illustrate the ways in which the party has sought to achieve Conservative governing objectives whilst governing in partnership with the Liberal Democrats, and where principles have been sacrificed or compromised in the light of the more pragmatic business of governing. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The study of conflict in cities has emerged as a significant subfield in a number of disciplines. For policy-makers and analysts concerned with humanitarian interventions in cities emerging from conflict, the city as a form of human organization and its impact upon the establishment of security is of particular importance. Less academic attention has been given to divided cities where the legitimacy of the state authority controlling the city is, itself, in question and where stabilization and the establishment of security is protracted. The adoption of integrative and inclusive approaches to policing becomes a key component in security regimes in divided cities. In these cases, however, to what extent should the stabilization phase be recast? Is the law enforcement phase subsumed and over-ridden by national security concerns? This article examines these questions by suggesting a number of security models which have been used in a range of divided cities. It focuses in more detail on a study of Israeli policing in the Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem occupied by Israel after 1967 to draw some broader conclusions about the nature of the security regime in Jerusalem and other divided cities inside contested states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines recent UN Security Council deliberations over events in Libya and Syria and in particular assesses the extent to which Council members sought to justify their positions and voting behaviour by reference to the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P). It shows how limited invocations of R2P were with regard to Libya, before proceeding to demonstrate how, somewhat paradoxically, R2P-sceptics such as Russia and China subsequently drew upon concerns over the manner in which NATO implemented its UN-mandate in Libya to cast doubts over R2P during debates over Syria. Contemplating the implications of the Libyan and Syrian cases for the future of R2P, the article concludes by arguing that the concept's international standing can best be preserved through the excision of its most coercive elements; R2P should be reconstituted as a standard of acceptable sovereign behaviour and a mechanism geared towards the provision of international guidance and support, while decisions over coercive military intervention, inevitably infused with considerations of strategic interest, should be made outside the R2P framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The adoption of Resolution 1973 authorizing intervention in Libya represented the first time that the UN Security Council had authorized military intervention in a functioning and non-consenting sovereign state for the purpose of protecting civilians. A crucial factor prompting skeptical states to allow the passage of the resolution in the absence of sovereign consent was the fact that relevant regional organizations had consented to, indeed appealed for, such action. This article examines this possible shift away from reliance on sovereign consent and toward reliance on the consent of regional organizations in Security Council deliberations about the authorization of military intervention to protect civilians, and it considers what it might mean for the future of civilian protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]