Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2013 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Humanitarian Intervention as a Responsibility to Protect': An International Society Approach

Pages
21–38
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By building on that framework, the article draws attention to the enabling and constraining factors highlighted by the international society approach, and as such, concludes that the English school suggests both promise and caution regarding the prospects for humanitarian intervention in modern international relations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article proposes to explain the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention by drawing on the English School s international society approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It argues that although the sovereignty versus human rights debate traditionally was framed in dichotomized terms, the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention illustrated the possibility of a via media approach to these competing normative claims.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By building on that framework, the article draws attention to the enabling and constraining factors highlighted by the international society approach, and as such, concludes that the English school suggests both promise and caution regarding the prospects for humanitarian intervention in modern international relations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article proposes to explain the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention by drawing on the English School s international society approach. It argues that although the sovereignty versus human rights debate traditionally was framed in dichotomized terms, the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention illustrated the possibility of a via media approach to these competing normative claims. Post-Cold War developments regarding the place of the conventional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention on the one hand and the growing space for the protection of human rights on the other, have eased worries about the prospect for order in the international system and created a suitable environment for including of humanitarian intervention without jeopardizing that order. To contextualize this development, the article will argue that Hedley Bull s discussion of such key terms as the international society, the centrality of states, the importance of norms, and normative change helps explain intervention in today s world. By building on that framework, the article draws attention to the enabling and constraining factors highlighted by the international society approach, and as such, concludes that the English school suggests both promise and caution regarding the prospects for humanitarian intervention in modern international relations.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARDAŞ, Ş. (2022). Humanitarian Intervention as a Responsibility to Protect': An International Society Approach. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 21–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/435037

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abiew, Francis Kofi. “Assessing Humanitarian Intervention in the Post-Cold War Period: Sources of Consensus.” International Relations 14 2 (August 1998): 61-90.
  2. Abiew, Francis Kofi. The Evolution of the Doctrine and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
  3. Annan, Kofi. “Two Concepts of Sovereignty.” The Economist, September 16, 1999.
  4. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty.” International Journal of Human Rights 6 1 (2002): 81-102.
  5. Brown, Chris. “World Society and the English School: An ‘International Society Perspective’ on World Society.” European Journal of International Relations 7 4 (2001): 423–41 Bull, Hedley. Anarchical Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
  6. Bull, Hedley. Conclusion to Intervention in World Politics, edited by Hedley Bull, 181- 95. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
  7. Chandler, David. “New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of State Sovereignty.” Political Studies 31 (2003): 332-349.
  8. Dağı, İhsan. “Human Rights, Foreign Policy and the Question of Intervention.” Perceptions 6 2 (June-August 2001): 105-119.
  9. Damrosch, Lori F.“Concluding Reflections.” In Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflicts, edited by Lori F. Damrosch, 348-67. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993.
  10. Damrosch, Lori F. Introduction to Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflicts, edited by Lori F. Damrosch, 1-26. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993. Danish Institute of International Affairs, Humanitarian Intervention: Legal and Political Aspects. Copenhagen: 1999: 36 Deng, Francis M., et al. Sovereignty as Responsibility. Washington DC: Brookings, 1995.
  11. Deng, Francis M. Protecting the Dispossessed: A Challenge for the International Community. Washington DC: Brookings, 1993.
  12. Donnelly, Jack. “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law Morality and Politics.” Journal of International Affairs 37 (Winter 1984): 311-328.
  13. Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
  14. Finnemore, Martha.“Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention.” In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identities in World Politics, edited by P. Z. Katzenstein, 153-175. New York: Colombia University Press, 1996.
  15. Fisher, David.“The Ethics of Intervention.” Survival 36 1 (Spring 1994): 51–60 Garrett, Stephan A. Doing Good and Doing Well: An