Search

The purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between Qatar's foreign policy and foreign aid in the Horn of Africa (HoA), with a particular focus on Somalia. Since the 2017 blockade, the HoA has become increasingly important to Qatar's foreign policy and aid efforts, intensifying political and economic competition with other Gulf players. This research describes Qatar's foreign policy strategies and tools in the HoA from 2011 to 2021, observing the evolution of humanitarian aid interventions in Somalia and the impact of Gulf competition in the country. The research aims to combine neoclassical realism with small‐state theory in the analysis of foreign aid, examining Qatari foreign aid interventions in Somalia as a foreign policy tool for exercising autonomy and as an outcome of the Qatari elites' decision‐making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines humanitarian relations between Cuba and the US at the height of Cold War conflict. After the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 to overthrow the Cuban government had resulted in a memorable defeat for the United States of America, an unusual humanitarian operation in 1962-63 secured the release of the prisoners of war in exchange for food and medical supplies. Framing the Prisoner Exchange Project (PEP) as an assemblage helps to understand how humanitarian interventions can succeed in situations where diplomatic relations are severed, and without involving international organisations as mediators. I analyse how the project brought diverse non-state actors together under the banner of humanitarianism, as well as non-human elements including supplies, ships, aircrafts, documents, and affective elements such as desire and hospitality. The national Red Cross Societies of America and Cuba managed to successfully carry out the exchange through constant relational work and mechanisms to render the project technical. This case study offers important lessons about the entanglement of humanitarian and development work, and how the involvement of Red Cross Societies unsettled hierarchies between donors and recipients and traditional geographies of humanitarianism. • Focuses on the exchange of Bay of Pigs prisoners for medicines and food in 1962. • Explores the emergence of humanitarian action through an assemblage theory lens. • Analyses the civil society role through the American Red Cross archive. • Highlights the relational work between American and Cuban Red Cross societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latin American foreign-policy elites defend the principle of non-intervention to shield their countries' autonomy. By 2005, however, most Latin American foreign policy elites accepted the easing of limits on the use of force in international law. They supported the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which regulates the use of force to protect populations from mass atrocities. The paper presents a comparison of the Brazilian, Chilean, and Mexican positions in the R2P debates to understand why they supported this norm. During the debates leading to the emergence of R2P, these elites questioned a central premise of liberal internationalism: the idea that great powers would restrain their use of military force as part of their commitment to a liberal international order (LIO). Using Republican international political theory, I argue that these Latin American foreign-policy elites viewed a restricted humanitarian-intervention norm as a new defence against great powers interfering in developing countries. Instead of trusting that great powers would restrain their actions, these elites advocated for a humanitarian-intervention norm that would prevent uncontrolled humanitarian interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the role of intersubjective and situated meanings and norm contestation for militarised humanitarian interventions from a critical perspective. The International Relations (ir) literature on humanitarian interventions, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, and emergence of norms is explained and critically evaluated. The case analysed here is Turkey and its foreign policy discourse regarding interventions in Libya and Syria. Based on the case and literature review, the author concludes that critical approaches particularly provide useful tools to understand the role of identity, changing foreign policy narratives, and power constellations in world politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the creation of the United Nations and even prior to Woodrow Wilson's philosophy of intervention, members of Congress called for a humanitarian intervention to aid the people of Cuba as they fought against the violent oppression of the Spanish government. Spurred on by the first-hand accounts of horrifying atrocities, President William McKinley overcame his reluctance and called for the American military to aid the revolutionaries in Cuba. This initial decision marks the beginning of a very different path towards international dominance than the one created by European empires. Unlike their European counterparts, the United States would claim to use its military to protect those fighting for their freedom all over the world due to their longstanding commitment to the liberal ideal of selfdetermination. While it may appear benevolent, the United States struggled with questions about how a self-governing people could develop and use a large military to overthrow governments as well as whether these actions could be considered imperialism. Looking into this early effort to rid a country of violent oppression by offering military assistance provides a prism through which to view the ongoing struggles of liberalism that informs American foreign policy decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In 2017, the long-festering discriminatory treatment to the Rohingyas in Myanmar, both in law and practice, resulted in the largest cross-border humanitarian crisis in Asia. During the 2016‑2017 Rohingya refugee crisis, the aerial shots of burnt villages and images of people trudging toward the horizon in search of refuge in neighboring nations dominated the Western media. However, for humanitarians, the question of whether the media helps with humanitarian crises remains complicated and unclear. This study examines the effects of media coverage on the Rohingya refugee crisis based on articles from two liberal, elite newspaper sources, The New York Times and The Guardian between 2010 and 2020. The study reveals that the attempts of international pressure to stop the crisis have increased through media coverage and political pressures; however, the number of Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar intensified due to worsening violence and human rights violations committed by the Myanmar army. Findings are discussed using the lens of cultural and ideological context. The study suggests that in Myanmar, where authoritarian military culture is pervasive, there is a limited influence of the international press on the state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya population and questions whether consistent international pressure could have changed the outcome.

Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.

Copyright of Ictimaiyat is the property of Ictimaiyat and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 research analyzes Clinton's decision to not intervene in the Rwandan genocide. The methodology used is a historical analysis and interpretation of primary and secondary source material. Clinton admitted that not intervening in the Rwandan genocide was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. There was not a substantial amount of domestic support for an intervention into Rwanda and Clinton did not attempt to use his influence to change that disposition. Clinton did not attempt to change domestic sentiments due to his priorities of reduced funding for foreign operations and the avoidance of 'mission creep.' The most common fault in the current historiography is the claim that Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda because of the failed mission that had recently occurred in Somalia, which does not align with the available evidence. Upon leaving office, he accepted ownership of his poor decisions and expressed sincere regret. 本研究分析了克林顿总统在卢旺达大屠杀中采取的不干预决策。使用历史分析法并对原始资料和次级文献加以诠释。克林顿承认，未干预卢旺达大屠杀一事是其在位期间最大的遗憾。彼时就干预卢旺达大屠杀一事并没有大量的国内支持，并且克林顿没有试图使用其影响力来改变这一倾向。鉴于其将重点聚焦于减少外交行动所需资金和避免"使命偏离"，克林顿也没有试图改变国内情绪。当前历史编篡学中最常见的错误论断则是，克林顿因之前在索马里的行动失败而并未干预卢旺达大屠杀，但这与可获得的证据不一致。任期结束时，克林顿承认了其糟糕的决策并表达了由衷的遗憾。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are currently limited and encumbered by a pervasive absence of a political will. In states’ calculations, political considerations are constantly winning-out over the moral considerations of saving at-risk segments of our planet. While institutional and legal reforms undoubtedly play a role in addressing this challenge, such reforms and structures have existed for generations now, and have largely failed to bridge this gap from ‘moral necessity to political action’. What has been lacking is a moral understanding of humanitarian crises that is capable of reliably motivating the international community to undertake remedying actions, rather than merely expressions of concern. Such a moral foundation is achievable through institutional cosmopolitanism, an understanding of humanitarian intervention as satisfactions of our negative duties, and specifically the work of Thomas Pogge.

Copyright of Fronteira: Revista de Iniciacao Cientifica em Relacoes Internacionais is the property of Instituto de Ciencias Sociais, Departmento de Relacoes Internacionais, PUC Minas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

At the turn of the millennium, as the Cold War ended and the United States were striving to build a unipolar world order, academic debates about the concept of sovereignty gained new momentum in the USA. This paper examines the views on this issue of representatives of the two major schools of international relations theory at the time — neoliberalism and neorealism. The author emphasizes that at the turn of the 21 st century the US academic discourse was dominated by a desire to revise traditional approaches to sovereignty as they were considered unsuitable for new postbipolar international realities. Discussions revolved around few key issues. Firstly, both neorealists and neoliberals focused on the possible implications of globalization and integration processes for the state sovereignty. Secondly, special attention was given to the search of a proper balance between the principle of sovereignty, on the one hand, and the protection of human rights, on the other. It is against this background that the concept of humanitarian intervention came into focus. The author stresses that at that time there appeared to be a certain convergence on the issues of sovereignty between the representatives of almost all key approaches in the US IR studies. For instance, it was a predominant assumption among the neoliberals and constructivists as well as the most part of the neorealists that a limitation of sovereignty was inevitable. Some experts pointed out that the processes of globalization and integration necessarily led to a ‘dilution’ of state sovereignty. Others suggested to decompose the principle of sovereignty into several parts. Still others stressed the indisputable importance of sovereignty as a basic principle, but admitted a necessity to adapt it to the new IR realities. Moreover, the US academic community almost unanimously accepted the priority of human rights over the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs of other states. As a result, the promotion of human rights was considered to be an international responsibility rather than an internal affair of a state. This, in turn, led to the emergence of the concept of ‘responsibility to protect’, which conditioned the state sovereignty not by its inherent rights but by its capacity to effectively protect its citizens’ human rights. This review of sovereignty researches published in 1990s and 2000s seems important for understanding the dynamics of the US official stance on a range of key issues of a current IR agenda, including the problem of foreign interference in internal affairs of other states.

Russia's use of force in Ukraine has been described as a challenge to the rule of international law and an event of unilateral intervention. This paper provides a reinterpretation of this standard history of Russian revisionism. Our new history places this practice in a global governance context through an analysis of the politics concerning the international legal norm of 'non-intervention' and its legitimate/illegitimate exceptions for collective intervention. This analysis discloses a practice of Russian diplomacy that emerges out of resistance to humanitarian interventions advocated for by Western states. This practice justifies its own state-bound humanitarian intervention as the legitimate exception to the foundation of international order, which Russian diplomacy had previously sought to restore. We argue the political discourse of the worldview of 'state civilization' explains these events of Russian revisionism. We conclude with an analysis of the international paradoxes of peace and conflict contingent on this Russian worldview. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UK governments have often claimed that humanitarian intervention – without the consent of the target state and if necessary without express UN Security Council authorization – is legally permissible in exceptional circumstances, a stance that is highly controversial. The UK's position is at odds with prevailing international legal doctrine, which is counterintuitive for a country that is generally committed to international law, the UN framework, and multilateralism. It is also in tension with normative developments related to human protection, such as the international 'Responsibility to Protect' principle, which established that coercive responses to human suffering must be authorized by the UN Security Council. This article explores the background to the UK's position on humanitarian intervention, and it argues that this reflects an element of continuity in the UK's foreign policy in historical perspective, as a legacy of global engagement and a sense of moral righteousness and duty. The article also considers whether the UK's position may be contributing to an evolution of the norms governing the use of force for human protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses Russian strategic narratives towards its interventions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014–16) based on a new database of 50 statements posted on the websites of the Russian Mission to the United Nations and the President of Russia homepage. By looking more broadly at Russian strategic narratives aimed at persuading other global actors and publics abroad and at home, this article identifies how Russia attempted to develop a story that could win global acceptance. This analysis shows that contrary to traditional Russian emphasis on sovereign responsibility and non-intervention, Russia supported claims for self-determination by separatist groups in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia used deception and disinformation in its strategic narratives as it mis-characterized these conflicts using Responsibility to Protect (R2P) language, yet mostly justified its own interventions through references to other sources of international law. Russian strategic narratives focused on delegitimizing the perceived opponents, making the case for the appropriateness of its own actions, and projecting what it proposed as the proper solution to the conflicts. It largely avoided making any references to its own involvement in the Donbas at all. Additionally, Russia's focus on the protection of co-ethnics and Russian-speakers is reminiscent of interventions in the pre-R2P era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates a "real-time" simulation where students role-play a United Nations Security Council negotiation over humanitarian intervention in Syria. This simulation is undertaken in a large introductory International Relations (IR) subject. The article argues that in order to achieve deep learning outcomes across the diverse, contemporary cohort of first-year university students, active learning approaches need to be employed that engage differing learning styles and preferences. Deep learning is assessed across the conceptual and metacognitive knowledge domains with two indicators: (1) students' understanding of IR concepts by applying them beyond the parameters of the Syria case and (2) students' critical reflection on their moral reasoning elicited by the task. We evaluate 820 students across six cohorts and 21 iterations of the simulation during 2016 and 2017 with a survey instrument and formal reflection assignment. The article finds that the simulation is highly effective at consistently engaging the majority of students' interest and motivation, while illustrating the acute and sometimes tragic tension between moral and political reasoning in IR. We found that disrupting student's cognitive structures regarding human rights and justice stimulated not only deeper conceptual understanding but also emotional reactions that were the catalyst for metacognitive reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars who study public opinion and American foreign policy have accepted what Rathbun et al. (2016) call the "Vertical Hierarchy Model," which says that policy attitudes are determined by more abstract moral ideas about right and wrong. This article turns this idea on its head by introducing the Prejudice First Model, arguing that foreign policy preferences and orientations are driven by attitudes toward the groups being affected by specific policies. Three experiments are used to test the utility of this framework. First, when conservatives heard about Muslims killing Christians, as opposed to the opposite scenario, they were more likely to support a humanitarian intervention and agree that the United States has a moral obligation to help those persecuted by their governments. Liberals showed no religious preference. When the relevant identity group was race, however, liberals were more likely to want to help blacks persecuted by whites, while conservatives showed no racial bias. In contrast, the degree of persecution mattered relatively little to respondents in either experiment, and the effects of moral foundations were shown to be generally weak relative to those of prejudice. In another experiment, conservatives adopted more isolationist policies after reading a text about the country becoming more liberal, as opposed to a paragraph that said the United States was a relatively conservative country. While not necessarily contradicting the Vertical Hierarchy Model, the results indicate that under most conditions the Prejudice First Model presents a better lens through which to understand how foreign policy preferences are formed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was created in the hope of overcoming the barrier that state sovereignty, as a principle, had become to actions of humanitarian intervention. It was imagined that as mass atrocity crimes were coming to the attention of the international community, that, on the whole, they were willing, able and eager to intervene in order to stop the violence in question. Holding them back was sovereignty as both a legal and normative barrier. This was always a bad explanation for the pervasive lack of humanitarian intervention; accordingly R2P, as a bad solution, has failed almost entirely. The problem is, and always has been, that when faced with mass atrocity crimes, the international community is plagued by a near-permanent lack of political will to action.

This article examines the case for distributive fairness among states in the context of humanitarian intervention. I start by arguing that distributive fairness among interveners is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons. I then discuss the worry that due to the nature of humanitarian intervention, fair burden sharing is difficult to achieve without compromising the operational effectiveness of interventions. I examine three responses that while they reduce the severity of this objection do not fully override it. Finally, in light of the objection I explore options for practical changes and institutional reform that could contribute to reconciling fair burden sharing with effective intervention. I conclude that fairness and effectiveness can be reconciled in the longer term by fully institutionalising humanitarian intervention and in the short term by distinguishing between the duty to undertake intervention and the duty to pay for it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tragedy is one of the oldest metaphorical lenses of International Relations. The tragic vision of politics, from Thucydides to contemporary realist theorists, lies at the core of classical realism. However, it is striking how rarely the concept of tragedy has been applied to the discourse of humanitarian intervention. This lacuna is a weakness on both the intellectual and political levels, as nowhere are clashes between competing ethical perspectives more glaring. An examination of the concept of tragedy, as conceived from its Greek origins, can illuminate an understanding of the morally contradictory imperatives created by armed intervention. Using the Bosnian War as a case study, Greek classical tragedy provides a framework to grasp the agonising choices and insoluble ethical dilemmas brought about by humanitarian intervention, in contrast to mere narratives of salvation. The argument conveyed in this article seeks to reconcile a tragic vision with the idea of progress and political action. It concludes by suggesting that the fundamental lessons that lie at the heart of tragedy should be associated with another major concept in Greek culture, namely, the Aristotelian idea of phronesis or 'practical wisdom'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Comparative Law / Revista Romana de Drept Comparat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Twenty years after the NATO intervention in Kosovo, domestic Western societies seem to have become more distrustful of the possibility of invoking and implementing humanitarian intervention (HI). This paper focuses on the 2011–2015 British domestic debate on the possibility of using force against the Syrian Government of Bashar al-Assad and against the Islamic State in Syrian territory. The goal is to understand how relevant domestic actors, namely the Government and the political parties, debated the concept of HI and engaged in several discursive strategies with the goal of influencing the decision on whether or not to intervene. The perception of the Members of Parliament about the failure of previous British governments of different ideological affiliations to carry out successful and useful interventions, especially in Iraq and Libya, favoured the development of an 'intersubjective understanding' that reflects a more precarious consensus on HI. The paper explains how the historical analogies of operations Iraqi Freedom against Saddam Hussein and Unified Protector against Muammar Gaddafi shaped the perceptions of political parties by pushing them to claim a larger say in disputes related to the legitimacy and feasibility of these operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are human rights a core value of US foreign policy? If so, how does the United States enforce human rights standards? Extant studies maintain that mass media, public opinion, and/or political concerns drive US decisions to engage in humanitarian military interventions. In this study, we explore the extent to which "human rights institutionalization" through the State Department's human rights reporting affects the likelihood of US humanitarian interventions. We find that human rights institutionalization is a viable, and perhaps even the best, explanation for the robust connection between human rights violations and deployment of the US military. These findings suggest that the United States is willing to undertake costly action to enforce international standards of human rights, but with some important caveats. Overall, we provide large-N, quantitative support for the broader shifts in US humanitarian intervention described by qualitative scholars and experts in US strategy and security policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Will the rise of China, an authoritarian, party-state with a poor record of protecting its citizens' human rights, undermine humanitarian intervention? This question has been particularly pertinent since China's "assertive turn" in foreign policy. Drawing on the case of Chinese reactions to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, this article argues that China's attitude toward humanitarian intervention remains ambiguous and contradictory. While China has at times prevented the UN Security Council from threatening sanctions on Syria, it has not necessarily denied that a humanitarian crisis exists. The article shows that the People's Republic of China is beginning to act more as a norm maker than norm taker, and is offering its own vision of humanitarian intervention, coined as "responsible protection." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights diplomatic practices that contributed to the wide approval of the polemical issue of humanitarian intervention, reframed into the term Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The expression was coined in 2001. It is now reported that R2P was unanimously agreed upon by 155 heads of states and governments during the 2005 World Summit held at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The conditions under which such an issue can reach a swift consensus are complex and manifold. Here, I focus on a diplomatic strategy employed by a handful of actors who carefully bypassed UN headquarters rather than promote the idea within the organization, as the official narratives on R2P suggest. I show that this strategy was inspired by a previous experience that led to another important change in global politics—the entry into force of the Anti‐Personnel Mine Ban Convention in 1999. The actors involved contributed to a normative change on humanitarian intervention by creating new forums of negotiations and using new kinds of networks that avoid multilateral arenas such as the UN. This article exposes concealed and informal aspects of diplomatic practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the concept of humanitarian intervention through the lens of international relations and the impact of the idea of human rights on the transformation of the concept of state sovereignty. The dichotomous nature of the reciprocal influence is due to the combination of the universally recognized international political-legal principle of state sovereignty and the firm belief that the international community cannot remain aloof in the event of a blatant violation of human rights. The problem of expediency and admissibility of interference in the internal affairs of the state with humanitarian purposes is considered. Tasks are realized by comprehending theoretical data related to the concepts of «human rights», «state sovereignty» and «humanitarian intervention», analysis of international normative legal acts, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the UN Charter, decisions of the International Court of Justice, etc. . It is concluded that humanitarian intervention, which is used to prevent mass violations of human rights in the territory of a foreign country, is transformed under the influence of political ambitions of individual states, and often turn into instruments of division of spheres of influence in the international arena. In this regard, it is becoming more urgent to harmonize the criteria for the use of force to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, and their compliance with international standards, in particular the principles of respect for state sovereignty. Prevention is emphasized as the best form of protection. In view of the above, the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem is substantiated by the combined efforts of political scientists and experts in the field of international law. [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 article is devoted to understanding the role and place of humanitarian intervention in the system of international relations. In particular, in order to clarify the essential features of the application of humanitarian intervention, the content of the main category was determined through the analysis of its components. Potential opportunities for humanitarian intervention to help resolve domestic conflicts are outlined. The transformation of the concept in historical retrospect is investigated. In addition, the normative acts that serve as the legal basis for the application of humanitarian intervention are analyzed, in particular: the Charter of the United Nations, resolutions of the Institute of International Law, Geneva Conventions, judgments of the International Court of Justice, etc. The results of the study demonstrate the potential negative consequences of the ineffective use of humanitarian interventions by the main agents of the international system - states and intergovernmental organizations, in the context of the pursued goals and motivations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Relaciones Internacionales (1699-3950) is the property of Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, International Relations Studies Group (GERI) Law Faculty and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Conflict among states or interstate conflict is still part of the important concern in the politics and international relations. International attention is becoming stronger along with the shift view of international society regarding the intervention justification to reduce the conflict. Realist and moralist perspective are changed by cosmopolitan one since the individual interest and security are more important rather than the will to maintain the state security including motives of sphere of influence and maintaining group stability and balance of power. This post-cold war phenomenon on the intervention justification tends to be conducted in the multilateral way and it is urged by humanity reasons –that is why it is called humanitarian intervention --rather than political and state security reasons. The significanceof intervention in the international relations is debatable issue since it involves various matter like legalistic language/term, various interests and international opinion

In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Book review: Chomsky N. A New Generation Draws the Line: Humanitarian Intervention and the “Responsibility to Protect” Today.Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2012. 176 p. The book under review examines controversial norm of “humanitarian intervention”. It clearly demonstrates that the norm was used selectively and with different argumentations in various situations. Noam Chomsky has managed to present a fair and balanced account of positive and negative aspects of humanitarian interventions as well as provide thought-provoking policy recommendations for improving human rights protection.

The aim of this article is to study the “Responsibility to Protect”, its evolution since 2000 and what can be expected for its future. Concurrently, the paper takes into account the need to protect populations, victims of certain types of aggression and to preserve the international order. Major criticisms of this doctrine are highlighted, as well as some of its impacts on the international community and, significantly, some of the difficulties that have arisen during its development – a process that has been controversial and troubled. Some of the main risks and uncertainties that affect its future are investigated, considering that a set of emerging countries who do not agree with the Western liberal order intends to be more active in international affairs. The fundamental argument is that the future of this doctrine might continue to be troubled and full of uncertainties. Thus, for RtoP to evolve in a favourable way, it will be necessary, on the one hand, that the members of the Security Council of the United Nations engage in genuine multilateral cooperation in order to safeguard the changes taking place in the international order; and, on the other hand, that the States consider such crimes to be an essential issue of international security and part of their interests.

The research topic of this article is the 'Ukrainian Question' in perspective of 'Kosovo precedent' within the framework of international law, current stream of international relations, contemporary world politics and global security. The aim of the article is to investigate the possible solutions for the current Ukrainian political crisis through the prism of 'Kosovo precedent' and global security perspectives. The article consists of nine sections dealing with the Ukrainian identity, historical background of the Ukrainian statehood, the 2014 Euromaidan coup d'état and the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, 'Kosovo precedent' and the 'Ukrainian Question', the possible political solution of the current Ukrainian crisis founded on the example of 'Kosovo precedent', a global geopolitical context of the 'Ukrainian Question' and 'Kosovo precedent', the geopolitical convergence between the US and Russia as a geostrategic background of the 'Ukrainian Question', Russian geopolitical and national interest in Ukraine, and finally conclusions of the investigation. The fundamental conclusion of the research is that 'Kosovo precedent' has already served and will further serve in the near future as the foundation for territorial decomposition of Ukraine by neighbouring Russia, opening the doors for a new age of global security and international relations.