This book explores how the bedrock institution of today's global order – sovereignty – is undergoing transformation as a result of complex interactions between power and norms, between politics and international law. This book analyses a series of controversial military interventions into the internal affairs of "irresponsible sovereigns" and discusses their consequences for the rules on the use of force and the principle of sovereign equality. Featuring case studies on Kosovo, Darfur and Afghanistan, It shows that frames from one discourse (for example the debate over the responsibility to protect) have been imported into other discourses (on counter-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation) in an attempt to legitimize a bold challenge to the global legal order. Although the 'demise' of sovereignty is widely debated, this book instead seeks to 'deconstruct' sovereignty by explaining how this institution has been reconstituted by global powers whose hegemonic law-making activities have popularized the notion of sovereignty as responsibility. Drawing on international relations theory, international law and sociology, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect develops a truly interdisciplinary perspective on the transformation of sovereignty and will be of strong interest to students and scholars in these fields.
This edited book by Mills and Karp brings together political, legal and moral perspectives on the responsibilities of human rights protection in world politics today. It critiques a narrow focus on states' 'violations' of human rights, incorporates non-state actors, and looks beyond the 'Responsibility to Protect' policy framework.
This edited volume critically examines the widely supported doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', and investigates the claim that it embodies progressive values in international politics. Since the United Nations World Summit of 2005, a remarkable consensus has emerged in support of the doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) – the idea that states and the international community bear a joint duty to protect peoples around the world from mass atrocities. While there has been plenty of discussion over how this doctrine can best be implemented, there has been no systematic criticism of the principles underlying R2P. This volume is the first critically to interrogate both the theoretical principles and the policy consequences of this doctrine. The authors in this collection argue that the doctrine of R2P does not in fact embody progressive values, and they explore the possibility that the R2P may undermine political accountability within states and international peace between them. This volume not only advances a novel set of arguments, but will also spur debate by offering views that are seldom heard in discussions of R2P. The aim of the volume is to bring a range of criticisms to bear from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including international law, political science, IR theory and security studies. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, human security, critical security studies and IR in general.
De tragische gebeurtenissen in Rwanda, Srebrenica en Kosovo hebben geleid0tot een herbezinning over de rol en verantwoordelijkheid van de internationale gemeenschap. In het beginsel Responsibility to Protect (R2P), dat in 2005 door de wereldleiders werd omarmd, hebben individuele staten nog steeds de primaire verantwoordelijkheid voor de bescherming van hun inwoners. Maar als ze die verantwoordelijkheid niet kunnen of willen nemen, komt de verantwoordelijkheid bij de internationale gemeenschap te liggen. R2P heeft de ambitie om herhaling van Rwanda, Srebrenica en Kosovo te voorkomen, maar er bestaat nog grote onduidelijkheid over inhoud en potentieel van dit beginsel. Deze bundel verkent R2P als moreel, politiek en juridisch beginsel en onderzoekt hoe de Verenigde Naties, de Europese Unie, individuele staten en NGO's R2P kunnen gebruiken om ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen te voorkomen.
The History and Future of Protection from Atrocities
Author: Luke Glanville
Publisher: Princeton University Press
A look at the duty of nations to protect human rights beyond borders, why it has failed in practice, and what can be done about it The idea that states share a responsibility to shield people everywhere from atrocities is presently under threat. Despite some early twenty-first century successes, including the 2005 United Nations endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect, the project has been placed into jeopardy due to catastrophes in such places as Syria, Myanmar, and Yemen; resurgent nationalism; and growing global antagonism. In Sharing Responsibility, Luke Glanville seeks to diagnose the current crisis in international protection by exploring its long and troubled history. With attention to ethics, law, and politics, he measures what possibilities remain for protecting people wherever they reside from atrocities, despite formidable challenges in the international arena. With a focus on Western natural law and the European society of states, Glanville shows that the history of the shared responsibility to protect is marked by courageous efforts, as well as troubling ties to Western imperialism, evasion, and abuse. The project of safeguarding vulnerable populations can undoubtedly devolve into blame shifting and hypocrisy, but can also spark effective burden sharing among nations. Glanville considers how states should support this responsibility, whether it can be coherently codified in law, the extent to which states have embraced their responsibilities, and what might lead them to do so more reliably in the future. Sharing Responsibility wrestles with how countries should care for imperiled people and how the ideal of the responsibility to protect might inspire just behavior in an imperfect and troubled world.
Confidentiality has long been a cornerstone of the practice of medicine and psychiatry. In the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in the number and type of exceptions to confidentiality. Confidentiality Versus the Duty to Protect: Foreseeable Harm in the Practice of Psychiatry is designed to help psychiatrists and other psychotherapists deal with the problems created by exceptions to confidentiality. The mental health professionals must now have some knowledge of relevant law. Without such knowledge, the clinician carries the double burden of ignorance and anxiety. The wish to lighten that burden is the motive for this book. Written by clinicians, for clinicians, Confidentiality Versus the Duty to Protect: Foreseeable Harm in the Practice of Psychiatry presents a discussion of law as it relates to the clinical issues of confidentiality versus the duty to protect. This book is divided broadly into two sections. The first section includes a chapter on basic issues, an overview of the law, and chapters on applications of the law in specific clinical settings. This section addresses legal issues surrounding clinical practice in the office, in the emergency room, and in the hospital. In the second section, the chapter authors examine specific clinical situations in which confidentiality and duty to protect issues arise. Chapters focus on issues relating to children and families, sexual misconduct between patients and therapists, HIV-positive patients, patients with a dual diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse, and two other problematic diagnoses: posttraumatic stress disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The book concludes with the presentation of a clinical case in which the patient poses a threat to the potential victim.
One of the most important developments in world politics in the last decade has been the spread of the idea that state sovereignty comes with responsibilities as well as privileges, and that there exists a global responsibility to protect people threatened by mass atrocities. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is an acknowledgment by all who live in zones of safety of a duty of care towards those in zones of danger. Thakur and Maley argue that this principle has not been discussed sufficiently in the context of international and political theory, in particular the nature and foundations of political and international order and the strength and legitimacy of the state. The book brings together a range of authors to discuss the different ways in which the Responsibility to Protect can be theorised, using case studies to locate the idea within wider traditions of moral responsibilities in international relations.
Contesting the Global Power Relations of Accountability
Author: Mark Busser
Category: Political Science
This book critically examines arguments about ‘obligation’ and ‘responsibility’ in relation to the responsibility to protect (R2P) and situates it within wider moral argumentation concerning the role of culpability, answerability, and human rights in international affairs. It discusses the ways in which R2P has been imagined and contested in order to illuminate some possible trajectories through which its potential might be actualized. Crucial to the development of a more ‘responsible’ world politics will be the recognition that formal inter-state ‘regimes’ of responsibility will need to be embedded within wider social ‘fields’ of responsibility constituted by the participation of attentive and mobilized global citizens ready to hold elites accountable. This book provides novel ideas to better understand the role of rhetoric and moral argumentation in international relations. Much of the novel contribution comes in the form of its conceptual breakdown of the ambiguous concept of ‘responsibility,' which often clouds clear understanding not only in international relations, but also in the specific debates over the ethics and practice of the international responsibility to protect regime. This book will be of much interest to students of the responsibility to protect, human rights, global governance, and international relations in general.
This book will consider a rapidly emerging guiding general principle in international relations and, arguably, in international law: the Responsibility to Protect. This principle is a solution proposed to a key preoccupation in both international relations and international law scholarship: how the international community is to respond to mass atrocities within sovereign States. There are three facets to this responsibility; the responsibility to prevent; the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild. This doctrine will be analysed in light of the parallel development of customary and treaty international legal obligations imposing responsibilities on sovereign states to the international community in key international law fields such as international human rights law, international criminal law and international environmental law. These new developments demand academic study and this book fills this lacuna by rigorously considering all of these developments as part of a trend towards assumption of international responsibility. This must include the responsibility on the part of all states to respond to threats of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansings and large-scale war crimes. The discussion surrounding aggravated state responsibility is also explored, with the author concluding that this emerging norm within international law is closely related to the responsibility to protect in its imposition of an international responsibility to act in response to an international wrong. This book will be of great interest to scholars on international law, the law of armed conflict, security studies and IR in general.
Following the humanitarian horrors of the 1990s, the international community began to seek consensus on a new norm to help address the tension between upholding the sovereign right of states to administer their own internal affairs, and the pressing need for civilian populations to be protected from their own government in certain situations. The result was the responsibility to protect initiative from the UN, accepted as an emerging norm and based on existing legal structures although not itself necessarily accepted as law. This volume looks not only at the humanitarian-inspired interventions of the past 15 years, such as those that took place under the Force for Good banner of the UK Government under New Labour, but also looks at what this has meant for the people actually involved in doing them. What responsibilities do states have towards their own soldiers when sending them to protect ‘other’ people? Should that protections extend to moral and psychological protection as well as physical protection, and if so, how? How far does the duty go when considering the protection of one’s own citizens who have deliberately placed themselves in harm’s way, such as journalists who have chosen to leave the safety of a protected area? What happens when institutions are faced with the choice of protecting their people or their reputation? What does it feel like for the inhabitants of a state who become ‘protected’ by the international community?
This book provides an innovative contribution to the study of the Responsibility to Protect and Kantian political theory. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine has been heralded as the new international security norm to ensure the protection of peoples against genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet, for all of the discussion, endorsements and reaffirmations of this new norm, R2P continues to come under fire for its failures, particularly, and most recently, in the case of Syria. This book argues that a duty to protect is best considered a Kantian provisional duty of justice. The international system ought to be considered a state of nature, where legal institutions are either weak or absent, and so duties of justice in such a condition cannot be considered peremptory. This book suggests that by understanding the duty's provisional status, we understand the necessity of creating the requisite executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Furthermore, the book provides three innovative contributions to the literature, study and practice of R2P and Kantian political theory: it provides detailed theoretical analysis of R2P; it addresses the research gap that exists with Kant's account of justice in states of nature; and it presents a more comprehensive understanding of the metaphysics of justice as well as R2P. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, global ethics, international law, security studies and international relations (IR) in general.
This book provides an innovative contribution to the study of the Responsibility to Protect and Kantian political theory. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine has been heralded as the new international security norm to ensure the protection of peoples against genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet, for all of the discussion, endorsements and reaffirmations of this new norm, R2P continues to come under fire for its failures, particularly, and most recently, in the case of Syria. This book argues that a duty to protect is best considered a Kantian provisional duty of justice. The international system ought to be considered a state of nature, where legal institutions are either weak or absent, and so duties of justice in such a condition cannot be considered peremptory. This book suggests that by understanding the duty’s provisional status, we understand the necessity of creating the requisite executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Furthermore, the book provides three innovative contributions to the literature, study and practice of R2P and Kantian political theory: it provides detailed theoretical analysis of R2P; it addresses the research gap that exists with Kant’s account of justice in states of nature; and it presents a more comprehensive understanding of the metaphysics of justice as well as R2P. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, global ethics, international law, security studies and international relations (IR) in general.