Search

Begin New Search Topic War Author Alex J. Bellamy

1. Humanitarian Intervention and International Order: The Endless Wars Problem

Author:
Alex J. Bellamy
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Nowadays, few approve of humanitarian intervention, understood as the use of non-consensual force for the principal purpose of alleviating massive human suffering. Realists have always held that armed humanitarian crusades are an irrational, dangerous, and counterproductive extravagance likely to cause more problems than they solve, and at great expense.1 In a world full of autocracies and communities that define their values very differently from one another, re- alists argue, the forceful pursuit of “liberal hegemony” is likely to produce only “a perpetual state of war.”2 Critical thinkers have always suspected that a thinly veiled Western liberal imperialism lay behind what some described as the “new military humanism.”3 Its confidence in Western perfidiousness was briefly shaken by revelations of its misplaced faith in the Khmer Rouge and Slobodan Milošević but restored with gusto by the false pretexts for war with Iraq in 2003. English School pluralists value international order over individual rights;4 legal positivists lament the illegality of humanitarian intervention;5 post-colonial scholars, states, and other critical writers believe humanitarian intervention is the thin end of a neo-imperial wedge to erode hard-won self-determination and sovereignty;6 pacifists complain that humanitarian war is still, after all, war, and highlight the tragic irony of taking lives in order to save lives.7 More recently, Samuel Moyn situated humanitarian intervention within a broader politics by which “endless war” has been normalized as humane at the expense of war prevention.8 So intense is global antipathy that prominent advocates of the “responsibility to protect,” like Gareth Evans, carefully distinguish the principle they champion from humanitarian intervention. Samantha Power, meanwhile, was chastened by a painful experience in Libya into doubting whether humanitarian goals could be achieved by military force.9
Topic:
Human Rights, War, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Order
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On

Author:
Alex J. Bellamy
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has become a prominent feature in international debates about preventing genocide and mass atrocities and about protecting potential victims. Adopted unanimously by heads of state and government at the 2005 UN World Summit and reaffirmed twice since by the UN Security Council, the principle of RtoP rests on three equally weighted and nonsequential pillars: (1) the primary responsibility of states to protect their own populations from the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as well as from their incitement; (2) the international community's responsibility to assist a state to fulfill its RtoP; and (3) the international community's responsibility to take timely and decisive action, in accordance with the UN Charter, in cases where the state has manifestly failed to protect its population from one or more of the four crimes. The principle differed from the older concept of humanitarian intervention by placing emphasis on the primary responsibility of the state to protect its own population, introducing the novel idea that the international community should assist states in this endeavor, and situating armed intervention within a broader continuum of measures that the international community might take to respond to genocide and mass atrocities. As agreed to by states, the principle also differed from the proposals brought forward by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty by (among other things) emphasizing international assistance to states (pillar two), downplaying the role of armed intervention, and rejecting criteria to guide decision-making on the use of force and the prospect of intervention not authorized by the UN Security Council. Five years on from its adoption, RtoP boasts a Global Centre and a network of regional affiliates dedicated to advocacy and research, an international coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), a journal and book series, and a research fund sponsored by the Australian government. More important, RtoP has made its way onto the international diplomatic agenda. In 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon challenged the UN membership to translate its 2005 commitment from ''words to deeds.'' This challenge was taken up by the General Assembly in 2009, when it agreed to give further consideration to the secretary-general's proposals. RtoP has also become part of the diplomatic language of humanitarian emergencies, used by governments, international organizations, NGOs, and independent commissions to justify behavior, cajole compliance, and demand international action.
Topic:
Security, Crime, Genocide, Government, and War
Political Geography:
United States and Australia