`` Veronique Zanetti `` : A Justice Theorists Who 's The Global Scale

Imagine for a moment what it would be like if the entire population of Sonoma County, California was killed, and twenty years later not many people knew a great deal about it. When over 500,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a great tragedy. However, no one rushed to the country’s aid. Now it is vital that the horrors of the instance that violated the human rights of so many, is not forgotten. Human rights are the universal actions and objects that all people are entitled to because they are human. Human rights have been violated in numerous ways over time, typically as a result of a person in power having their own best interests in mind rather than the peoples´. Various groups, such as Amnesty

In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as a military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless one is intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.

This paper considers two issues: firstly, human rights in the developing world and secondly Canada’s responsibility of humanitarian assistance. Both issues are of grave importance and are mutually exclusive - as nations lacking strong human rights standards are more likely to require the greatest humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the need for humanitarian assistance will increase as global crises become more frequent, due to climate change insecurity (Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway & Hulme, 2003). The example of climate change will be utilised throughout this paper to explore the disparaging links between climate justice and human rights. In defining humanitarian assistance this paper will take Jamieson’s (2004) definition that humanitarian assistance is a response to crises via support in the short term to overcome disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Whereas, development assistance considers the longer term issues in developing countries. By defining the two main types of assistance this paper will propose that greater investment into development aid may reduce the need for humanitarian aid as nations become more capable to support themselves. The body of this paper will consider key arguments concerning humanitarian assistance and human rights, including: Canadas humanitarian response in the developing world, the increasing need for global crisis response, human rights as a global responsibility and lastly the move from humanitarian to development assistance. In

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

Creating relations between races and ethnicity's has always been vital to the success of the world. The United States and the international community have been, more often than not, late to stop violent acts against humanity. It took decades after the United Nations was created, and after a horrendous genocide in Rwanda, for the International Criminal Court to be created. Despite these two establishments created for international peace and security, crimes against humans rights are still occurring.When human rights are being violated, it is necessary for the U.S. and its allies to intervene in ethnic conflicts. While others may say humanitarian intervention goes against a state’s sovereign authority,it is necessary to protect

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

Genocide and the place of international intervention have been at the center of ethical debate for quite some time in international humanitarian law. Much debate has surrounded the idea that the Rwandan genocide could have been stopped with the help of international intervention, however, it is worthwhile to note the motives why this was not the case and where morality comes into play. According to the Oxford dictionary morality can be defined as “a particular system of values and principles of conduct concerning the distinction between right and wrong.” Though UN representatives, peacekeepers, and some media outlets were reporting on the issues on the ground level, action was minimal from both the UN and from “western” countries.

In fact, many still attribute the instability and poverty of the Great Lakes region directly to the Rwandan genocide and the long-lasting scars it has left. Thus, the importance of intervention in events of the genre of the Rwandan genocide is clear. The impacts of mass atrocities, like genocide or war crimes extend beyond just the people being targeted, but rather, affect the whole country, the whole region, the whole world. The ripple effects of a genocide are far-reaching and catastrophic, making it essential that intervention occurs before such events are allowed to run their devastating course. Along with our moral responsibility to ensure that sovereign states do not use their sovereignty with impunity, the interconnectedness of our globalized world make it essential that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, a policy of interventionism for humanitarian purposes with clear parameters, is used to avert future Rwanda's, Congo’s and Burundi’s from

The article “The New Humanitarian Order” by Mahmood Mamdani, published in The Nation, dated September 10, 2008 based on the theory of international humanitarian order which titles responsibility for the protection of certain population around the globe which is often regarded as vulnerable populations. Furthermore, author Mamdani argues that the new order of humanitarian is politicized and to some extend corrupted by powerful countries of world. In addition, he also argues that because of politicization of the new order, sovereignty only remains in the affluent parts of the world but it is suspended in countries in Africa and Middle East, thereby making many countries in Africa as failed states (Mamdani, 2008). Mamdani also argues that western countries, with the use of humanitarian interventions is gaining illegitimate

I believe the unfolding of human rights' development was not only impacted by, but was a consequential urge of globalization. Despite the fact that humanitarian agreements already existed before, like the first Geneva Convention adopted in 1864, it was only in the aftermatch of the World War II that the international community increasingly worried about such issues (“Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949”, n.d.). After the Holocaust, not only the term “genocide” was defined by the very first time (“Raphael Lemkin and Creation of the word “Genocide”, 2016), but the League of Nations was improved and in 1945 a new international collaboration was created: The United Nations (“History of the United Nations”, n.d.).

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

Justice, peace and democracy are not mutually exclusive objectives but rather mutually reinforcing imperatives. Advancing all three in fragile post-conflict settings requires strategic planning, careful integration and sensible sequencing of activities. Approaches focusing only on one or another institution or ignoring civil society or victims, will not be effective. Our approach to justice sector must be comprehensive in its attention to all of its interdependent institutions, sensitive to the key groups and mindful to the need for complementarity between transitional justice mechanisms. Our main role is not to build international substitutes for national structures but to help build domestic justice capacities.

Humanitarian intervention (HI) is nowadays most often understood as “the use of military force by a state or group of states, in the territory of another state, in order to halt or avert the large-scale and severe abuse of human beings, which is usually being committed or sanctioned by the de facto authorities of that state” (ICISS 2001 :34). While most theoretical traditions immediately connect HI to the ethical component and focus on the examination of it (Heinze 2005), Structural Realism (SR) or Neo-Realism as it is also called is definitely not one of those. The groundwork of theory, as seen from the name, being the structure of the international system. Anarchy, the world without any central authority, in which states have to pursue power to protect themselves and ensure survival. Seeing as states play the zero-sum game, they mostly focus on the gains and benefits HI can bring to great powers and how it helps maintain their prospect for survival (Mearsheimer 2013). One could even present it as ethical scepticism, meaning “a doctrine that treats ethical reasoning as irrelevant to politics and IR (Lechner 2010: 437). This essay will examine strengths and weaknesses of SR in explaining the issue of humanitarian

In 1998, four years after the Rwandan genocide, Bill Clinton stood in front of Rwandan genocide survivors and officials and solemnly apologised that he and his government “did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror”. Continuing with a regretful tone, Clinton proclaimed that “We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence”. In the 23 years since the Rwandan Genocide, academics and politicians alike have echoed Clinton’s pledge, and as questions and criticisms are lobbied against the concept of humanitarian intervention, the memory of the up to one million Tutsi and sympathetic Hutu massacred in 1994 is brought into the forefront as a cautionary tale of the dangers of international inaction. This essay addresses the Genocide, its consequences and the significance it holds for the international community and their pursuit of international peace and security. This essay is divided into three parts - the first focuses on the Genocide itself and its context, while the second part examines the consequences, looking at the political challenge of a post-genocide society, the difficulty of the justice process and the substantial regional flow on effects. The final part evaluates how the alternative courses of action that were not taken inform greater

Over centuries the international community has witnessed the deadly harm of sovereign states that have demonstrated acts of colossal inhumanity, such as the atrocities of the Holocaust, Khmer Rouge and Rwanda. All these episodes have contributed of an introduction to a new paradigm of international of law, The Responsibly to Protect (R2P). This was adopted unanimously in 2005 by United Nations General assembly World Summit. The R2P doctrine is based on 3 pillars of responsibility: 1. Each nation state is obligated to protect its populace from crimes such as “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. 2.The international community has to encourage states to uphold their role in ensuring R2P is adequately met. 3. If the nation state fails to protect its populace from these crimes, it therefore it becomes an implication for the international community to collectively take action. Notably this must be in accordance to article 39 of the United Nations Charter. Hence, academic scholar Bellamy reinforces this; “R2P offers the best change in our own time to build an international community that is less tolerant of mass atrocities and more predisposed to preventing them”. However it must be noted that the doctrine of R2P is not legally binding.