Search

Can the displacement of refugees continue to be understood as exceptional? The recent global increase in refugees has prompted calls to develop new solutions to displacement that focus on integrating refugees into the local economies of nations that receive them. Transforming refugees from economic burdens to economic benefits does not, however, resolve displacement: doing so only shifts the project of refugee protection from a supposedly humanitarian imperative to an economic incentive. Examining how political economy intersects with moral economy in the global refugee regime by drawing on fieldwork conducted with refugees in Uganda and Australia, I describe how efforts to incorporate refugees into local economies not only fail to resolve their displacement but serve to exacerbate it, with such 'humanitarian exploits' transforming refugees from recipients of humanitarian aid to highly exploitable workers who are, in their words, unable to 'make a life'. I consider that continuing to analyse refugees as objects of humanitarian intervention rather than actors in a globalised political economy is a way to reproduce the exceptionality of refugee experiences and conceal how their lives are implicated within and indicative of new formations of global capitalism. Not only is the displacement of refugees not exceptional: it is emblematic of an increasingly globalised experience of ordinary displacement through which citizenship and civic rights are stratified by reducing the value of human life to the potential to extract economic productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the Australian practice in international relations and laws in the year 2012. Topic discussed include treaties and agreement made by Australia with other countries; the country's views on humanitarian intervention of Mali; Australia's stand for the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN's Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

The international response to the crisis in Libya has been remarkably quick and decisive. Where many other cases of mass atrocity crimes have failed to generate sufficient and timely political will to protect civilians at risk, the early response to Libya in 2011 has shown that the United Nations Security Council is able to give effect to the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm. While not an implementing party in a legal sense, the Australian government has taken a forward-leaning diplomatic stance in helping to mobilise broad support for addressing this crisis. In light of the ongoing political controversy over armed humanitarian intervention, the Libya case shows that state-based advocacy for R2P matters, given the on-going need to bolster the legitimacy of the principle. A discussion of Canberra's diplomatic activity is a prelude to an examination of the proceedings of the UN Security Council and the two key resolutions, the second of which gave effect to the forcible action. The article then considers three dimensions of the Security Council's implementation of the responsibility to protect: the language of the resolutions and the intriguing absence of a textual reference to the international community's responsibility to act; the expansive mandate for civilian protection in Security Council resolution 1973; and the first unanimous referral to the International Criminal Court, with novel support from the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Australian government and military have maintained humanitarian interventions for far longer than any comparable U.S. humanitarian intervention. This longevity confounds most traditional international relations theories. It seems that the key variable is public support for humanitarian interventions. The U.S. public quickly grew impatient with humanitarian operations, while the Australian public has not yet done so. Two reasons for the Australian public’s forbearance are explored. First, the idea that the Australian military and government are proficient at these operations and that the public supports these operations because it “loves a winner” is found wanting. Second, innate differences between the United States and Australia, particularly regarding news media, are explored; these differences seem to be highly correlated with the longevity of the operations. It seems likely that the Australian public does not hear enough about these operations to be concerned about them or question their utility, efficacy, or cost. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

It is widely recognised that the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), adopted by heads of state and government in 2005, is an important new international principle. Australia has been one of the principle's most significant contributors, with prominent Australians and governments from both sides of politics contributing to its development, emergence, and implementation. This article traces and explains Australia's contribution to RtoP and asks what more it might do to assist in its implementation. It argues that Australia's commitment to RtoP is informed by a synergy of values and interests and has been strengthened by the Rudd government's reengagement with multilateralism. It concludes by calling for the development of a whole-of-government strategy for implementation and by suggesting some policy avenues that might be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the controversies concerning pragmatic and ethical considerations of humanitarian intervention. It discusses issues concerning humanitarian intervention including liberal peace theory, State Sovereignty, and the work of the International Convention on Intervention. It features the occupation of Indonesia over half the island of East Timor as one of the cases of humanitarian crisis which resulted to the death of around 100, 000 to 250, 000 Timorese and the intervention of Australia towards Indonesia. It also presents the contribution of television broadcasting in internationally exposing the problem.

The article discusses military intervention and humanitarian assistance programs in the Asia-Pacific region. The author explains that an effort to assist those suffering from human rights issues is only successful if that community is able to continue rebuilding after the intervention has been completed and the military forces have left. The author outlines four main themes in the article, including strengthening civil-military relations, creating a human security program, Australia's renewed support of the United Nations and a change in how the reception of aid is seen.

Examines the peace-enhancement strategy and humanitarian intervention of Australia in the conflict in Baidoa, Somalia. Information on the failure of the Unified Task Force led by the U.S. in intervening in the conflict in Somalia; Discussion on the U.S. approach to peace enforcement in Mogadishu, Somalia; Details of the peace strategies used by Australia in Baidoa.

Modern Asia has been shaped by intervention, but the principle of noninterference is an integral part of the 'Asian Way'. Countries of the region have doggedly opposed any suggestion that state sovereignty should be softened by a new doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention'. The participation of some of these countries in the 1999 intervention in East Timor - an action sanctioned by the United Nations for specifically humanitarian purposes - was thus out of character. This departure was a consequence of specific historical and political factors, most importantly, the fact that the UN had never accepted Indonesia's incorporation of the territory as legitimate. Once the United States adopted a more critical attitude, after Australia pressured Indonesia to test local opinion on East Timor's future, the internationalisation of the issue became inevitable. There are certainly lessons in the East Timor case for coalition operations and other interventions in the region. But the actions of the Australia-led coalition do not indicate a wider regional acceptance of the norm of humanitarian intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on humanitarian intervention and the human rights framework. It argues that international human rights framework is vital and useful for assisting non-government organizations, countries, communities and people to establish attainable goals. It discusses the misuse of human rights discourse and its use as a smokescreen for political agendas. It also reminds the Australian government of its moral duty to aid rebuild and boost Aboriginal grassroots institutions.