Regardless of the intense debate on UN humanitarian intervention, the issue remains murky. There were no agreed rules for handling cases such as Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, or Haiti in the early 1990s, and there are still none today. The contradictory practices of UN humanitarian intervention in regards of human rights violations, and the lax provisions of international humanitarian law, cause the matter to be handled in a completely arbitrary manner. Given similar premises of grave human rights violations, why does the UN intervene in some cases but not in others?
Based on the legal debate, this thesis first outlines the circumstances under which intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a state is legal and accepted by the international community. The ‘principle of state sovereignty' vs. the emerging ‘responsibility to protect' (R2P) in the face of human rights violations is addressed, and the increasing salience of the latter to the detriment of the former underscored. Secondly, the focus shifts to the literature on International Relations, with the aim of identifying the factors that are potentially responsible for the UN decision to grant or withhold authorization for the deployment of military troops in a country where human rights violations are prevalent.
In search of comprehensive answers, this research paper uses a theoretical model to explain causal pathways to UN humanitarian intervention and non-intervention, respectively. Theory building is supplemented by theory-testing in the framework of a mixed-method design combining qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and six case studies. Four cases of intervention and two cases of non-intervention in the post-Cold War era are used as examples. Based on the empirical analysis, the theoretical model is validated and refined. In conclusion, new avenues are envisaged to advance the extant research on the drivers of UN humanitarian interventions.
Bianca Sarbu is a PhD student at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich, Switzerland.
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Johannes Gunesch: Security is Central to Global Governance
- Rudi Guraziu:The Contreversy of Humanitarian Intervention
- Ariela Blatter:Bashir's Prosecution Will Not Ruin the Chances for Peace in Darfur
- 2
August 18, 2009
Marc Saxer, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, (6)
your thesis is of outmost interest. Speaking of "The ‘principle of state sovereignty' vs. the emerging ‘responsibility to protect' (R2P) in the face of human rights violations is addressed, and the increasing salience of the latter to the detriment of the former underscored.", I would be interested how you judge the recent attempt of R2P adversaries to undermine the principle at the GA debate?
Best wishes,
Marc Saxer