New guidelines for determining the applicability of international humanitarian law to United Nations peace operations are both necessary and urgent.
From a well-meaning attempt at humanitarian action following the crises of the 1990s, the Responsibility to Protect has nevertheless become a vehicle for self-interest.
R2P’s power lies in its potential, as an emerging norm, to shift state attitudes to mass atrocity crimes to a legal commitment to protect at risk people around the world.
The application of Responsibility to Protect in Libya was a success in that it mobilised the UNSC to act decisively with remarkable speed and fully in accordance with R2P
Sri Lanka and Rwanda elicit a sense of victimhood upon which their respective foreign policies have been built.
The disjuncture between kinetic elements of American COIN doctrine and the nation-building mission inherent to ‘new’ conflicts lies at the root of ongoing difficulties.
The Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq was a story of neo-conservative ideas (militarism, morality, and democracy) about the role of America in the world.
The legal success of the Genocide Convention continues to re-establish the norm politically, albeit under misinterpretation and without effect of prevention.
‘Hard’ & ‘soft’ power are competing approaches to power in IR. Soft power is increasingly effective & hard power less so; ‘smart power’ offers a promising third strategy.
Though national security frameworks may hinder pragmatic cooperation, securitising climate change is advantageous in planning for a clear and increasingly present danger.
Individuals & organizations are increasingly gaining traction in a state-dominant international legal order, a piecemeal process that may result in a global constitution.
Humanitarian Intervention marks a struggle at the foundations of international law. This struggle is an ongoing one, as evidenced by its instances of abuse and failure.