Suchergebnisse

The inclusion of the three paragraphs in the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit that make reference to the obligations of the state and the international community under the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has effectively raised a challenge to the traditional understanding of the principle of sovereignty in international relations. More importantly, their inclusion in the Outcome Document has effectively committed its signatories to RtoP as briefly outlined in the Document. The question, however, is whether or not states will hold themselves to this commitment? Among the member-states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the commitment to RtoP under the Outcome Document is clearly at odds with the oft-emphasized commitment to the principle of non-interference that the members of the Association have long identified with. The establishment of new institutional forms, mechanisms, and blueprints within ASEAN, however, create opportunities for introducing emergent norms into the region. The ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is representative of these new institutional forms. It is the immediate manifestation of the ASEAN declaration of support for the promotion and protection of human rights in the region. Though criticized as "lacking in teeth" especially on the provisions that have to do with the protection of human rights, the AICHR's mandated functions are very generally ambiguous in the way they are presented in its Terms of Reference. These "ambiguities" arguably open up the interpretation of its functions to a more liberal perspective, more so in terms of opening the envelope on the protective functions of the AICHR. In the same context, the same ambiguities in the TOR of the AICHR may be utilized as entrypoints for introducing elements of RtoP into the region. It also illustrates the need to consider a strategy of incremental localization in pushing the normalization of RtoP in Southeast Asia. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

Aus rechtswissenschaftlicher, normativ geprägter Perspektive wird die Frage der Verankerung eines Rechts auf freie und demokratische Wahlen in Afrika auf der Ebene der African Union bzw. der Vorgängerorganisation OAU thematisiert. Der Autor zeichnet bisherige Diskussionsprozesse und Entwicklungen nach, arbeitet Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der Entwicklungen in verschiedenen Ländern heraus und formuliert Schlussfolgerungen, die im Hinblick auf die Durchsetzung demokratischer Strukturen für die Ausgestaltung des rechtlichen Rahmens zu ziehen wären. (DÜI-Kör)

The people of Myanmar were struck by three major human rights disasters during the country's period of democratization from 2003 to 2012: the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, and the 2012 Rakhine riots, which would evolve into the ongoing Rohingya crisis. These events saw Myanmar's government categorically labeled as an offender of human rights, and three powerful Southeast Asian member states-Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia-responded to the violations in very different ways. In each case, their responses to the crises were explicitly shaped by norm conflict, which may be understood as a tension between international and domestic norms. Their reactions were compelled by a need to address conflicting domestic and international expectations for norm compliance regarding human rights protection and non-interference in internal affairs. In Norms in Conflict: Southeast Asia's Response to Human Rights Violations in Myanmar, Anchalee Rüland makes sense of state action that occurs when a governing body is faced with a circumstance that is at once in line with and contrary to its own governing policies. She defines five different types of response strategies to situations of norm conflict and examines the enabling factors that lead to each strategy. Domestic norms are known to evolve as a country's values change over time yet Rüland argues that the old and new norms may also coexist; knowledge of the underlying political context is crucial for those seeking a solid understanding of state behavior. Norms in Conflict challenges the conventional understanding of the logic of consequences in determining state behavior, advancing constructivist theory and establishing a provocative new conversation in international relations discourse.