Search results

Against the backdrop of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) policy – an instrument with which the UN seeks to protect vulnerable civilians from gross violations of human rights – this study examines the application of R2P in the Libyan intervention and the various efforts to replicate similar claim to intervene in Syria. While proposing that the roles of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is increasingly influential to the success of an intervention, this study asks the question: what are the general conditions for success of R2P application in Libya and Syria during the period 2011-2014?

In its examination of the policy and scholarly works that have informed, justified and evaluated the processes and outcomes of the principles of R2P policy, this paper used relevant search terms for conditions for success of humanitarian military intervention (COSI). Specific keywords such as R2P, BRICS and humanitarian intervention are scrutinised for relevance to the research question. Documents that failed to satisfy the criteria of research quality were excluded, whereas the key problems and findings identified in each studied document were tabulated into inclusion and exclusion.

Despite the role of BRICS in the Libyan and Syrian interventions, existing literature failed to explicitly make this connection, although much of the literature agreed on a number of general conditions for success. This paper problematise the relationship between success and BRICS role. One of the reasons for this is the emerging nature of the literature that is beginning to appreciate the plausibility that the BRICS influences the success of an intervention.

This piece synthesises studies that focus on COSI with preference for works that engaged this study’s case countries. Much rich data which even until now are always in need of close examination emerged during data collection, making it useful to craft a third part for BRICS-focused literature that has informed the R2P debate.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based violence (GBV) and genocide. Victims of gendercide, such as femicide and transicide, should be eligible for protections assigned to victims of genocide, including the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

This study examines genocide, gendercide, femicide, transicide and the R2P doctrine to formulate a platform of engagement from which to argue the alignment and congruence of genocide with gendercide. Using a content analysis of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees definition of GBV, and Article II of the Genocide Convention (GC) five “directive” facets are examined, namely, identity, physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence.

Expressions of physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence reflected similarity, whereas the GCs omit sex and gender as facets of identity group inclusion. The only variation is the encapsulation of identity factors included in the acts of harm.

The elevation of gendercide to the status of genocide would permit us the leverage to make it not only illegal to permit gendercide – internationally or in-country – but make it illegal not to intervene, too.

Deliberate harm based on sex and gender are crimes against people because of their real or perceived group membership, and as such, should be included in genocide theory and prevention.

This study explores a new conceptual basis for addressing gendercidal violence nationally to include sex and gender victim groups typically excluded from formal parameters of inclusion and address due to limitations in Article II. The analysis of genocide alongside GBV may inform scholars and activists in the aim to end gendered violence.

The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the features that have shaped the state's decision‐making process in the United Nations, with regard to the humanitarian intervention in Darfur from 2003 onwards.

The methodological approach to the study is a review of political statement papers grounded in the concept of “humanitarian imperialism” and a “responsibility to protect”.

It was found out that the decision‐making process, leading to humanitarian interventions in Darfur was shaped by a larger extent by the states' own national interests and to a smaller extent by humanitarian considerations.

The main implications of this paper are that the United Nations are not the right platform when it comes to humanitarian interventions that should be placed on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, nation states are strongly advised to accept their leading role in international politics and to realise their responsibility to protect foreign citizens in humanitarian catastrophes.

This paper will have an effect on the way humanitarian interventions and “humanitarian motives” can be seen in society and will suggest that in some situations it is advised to take a more realist approach towards humanitarian interventions.

This paper is valuable for further analysis of political decision‐making processes and learning processes within politics.

An influential strand of human rights theory explains human rights through appeal to their function. Such ‘function’ theories highlight the role human rights play in international practice and discourse as standards for appropriate state treatment of individuals. But standards in what sense? Standards to be promoted and encouraged through public critique, bilateral pressure, institutional censure or legal culpability? Or standards to be protected and defended through all necessary means? I argue that function theorists conflate (what states themselves recognize as) the important distinctions between these standards. Worse still, many function theorists argue that a major – even definitive – role of human rights involves demarcating permissibility conditions for humanitarian intervention. I argue that this claim gravely mischaracterizes international practice and discourse – in particular it fails to recognize the independent significance of other functional norms operating within the global context. The theorists correctly perceive that we have powerful reasons for wanting this role (of threshold conditions for military intervention) fulfilled, but by mistaking the norms that in fact fulfil it, they distort the actual function of human rights.

The Rome Statute, especially Article 7 on Crimes against Humanity, and the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) apply to widespread violations of human rights that a State fails to prohibit or protect against. Yet far too little attention has been paid to systemic crimes that take the lives of many millions of women and girls every year. The purpose of this paper is to detail a proposal to use international law to hold governments and/or their agents accountable when they fail to protect the female half of humanity from widespread and egregious crimes of violence.

To accelerate the movement to make women's human rights a global priority, it examines: first, expanding the interpretation of the Rome statute, particularly Article 7 – Crimes against Humanity. Second, where necessary, amending the statute to include gender in addition to race and ethnicity.

Seven crimes and their personal, social, and economic consequences are analyzed, and legal remedies are detailed: selective female infanticide and denial to girl children of food and health care; the sex trade and sexual slavery; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); domestic violence (from murder in the name of honor and bride burning to acid throwing and battery); rape; child marriage and forced marriage.

This paper explores a new approach for use by scholars, attorneys, and human rights activists to end the global pandemic of violence against the female half of humanity by invoking the Rome Statute and/or amending it to protect women and girls. It provides a new legal and sociological analysis.