Scholarly debates should acknowledge the existence of humanitarian intervention and shift the debate towards evaluating the required behavior during an intervention.
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.