| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174655
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Selective humanitarianism, it has been argued, may be condonable, or even preferable. Several arguments have been proffered in support of these views. This article revisits these arguments in light of the emergence of a discourse of protection and responsibility that now incorporates a wider spectrum of protection measures available to agents, of which armed intervention is but one. Consistency is an essential characteristic of ethics and the law—inconsistent practice diminishes the prospects of the development of norms of protection and associated practices and institutions. Furthermore, inconsistent practice means that fewer people receive protection from egregious violations of human rights. If the principles associated with human protection and humanitarianism are to become established norms of international society, international policy must be coherent, and international practice must be consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166581
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is the responsibility to protect (R2P) still controversial? The question is important because if R2P was no longer controversial, this would suggest that the principle is on track to consolidation as an international norm. The article assesses the impact of 16 years of sustained R2P advocacy and its influence on arguments within the scholarly community, and discusses the impact this engagement has had on the outline and substance of the principle itself. A survey of the development of the academic debate since 2005 suggests that the ‘responsibility to protect’ has successfully replaced ‘humanitarian intervention’ in international discourse, but that the principle remains controversial, especially beyond the policy community, particularly in the world of academe, in the humanitarian aid sector and religious organizations and with states with a colonial past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|