Suchergebnisse

Die Nato-Luftangriffe auf Jugoslawien stellen den ersten Versuch dar, die neue internationale Rechtsdoktrin der universellen Verteidigung von Menschenrechten in der Praxis durchzusetzen. Der Autor hält die Anwendung von Gewalt zur Durchsetzung dieser Rechte ohne die Billigung entsprechender Aktionen durch den Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen jedoch für nicht legitim. Zudem kritisiert er die selektive Haltung der Nato in dieser Frage. Er plädiert für eine Rückkehr zum alten internationalen Recht, das den Nationen das Recht auf Souveränität und Nichteinmischung in ihre nationalen Angelegenheiten garantiert. (BIOst-Mrk)

Old hegemons, new challenges and the limits of traditional responses -- Sponsorship linking resources, legitimacy and institutions -- "If I ruled the world:" imperialism, anti-corruption and the World Bank -- The Bush doctrine and the norms of preemptive and preventive intervention -- Cyberspace, the new frontier - and the same old multilateralism / Panayotis A. Yannakogeorgos -- George W. Bush and the sponsorship of the anti-trafficking norm: a rare success story -- Sponsoring global norms: emerging patterns and policy options in global politics

This book offers a novel and contemporary examination of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) doctrine from an international legal perspective and analyses how the doctrine was applied within the Libyan and Syrian conflicts as two recent and highly significant R2P cases. The book dissects each of R2P's three component pillars to examine their international legal underpinnings, drawing upon diverse legal frameworks - including the laws of the UN, laws of international organisations, human rights law, humanitarian law, criminal law, environmental law, and laws of State responsibility - to extract conclusions regarding existing and emerging host and third-State obligations to prevent and react to mass atrocity crimes. It uses this legal grounding to critically examine specific aspects of the Libyan and Syrian R2P cases, engaging with some of the more traditional debates surrounding R2P's application, most notably those that pertain to the use of force (or lack thereof), but also exploring some of the less-researched non-military methods that were or could have been employed by States and international organisations to uphold the doctrine. Such an analysis captures the diversity in the means and actors through which R2P can be implemented and allows for the extraction of more nuanced conclusions regarding the doctrine's strengths and limitations, gaps in enforceability, levels of State support, and future trajectory.

The right to self-determination is renowned for its lack of clear interpretation. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a 'classic' and a 'romantic' tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or 'domesticate' the romantic version by limiting it to 'abnormal' situations, that is cases of 'alien subjugation, domination and exploitation'. This book situates Russia's engagement with the right to self-determination in this debate. It shows that Russia follows a distinct approach to self-determination that diverges significantly from the consensus view in international state practice and scholarship, partly due to a lasting legacy of the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union's role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia's relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Drawing on analysis of all seven major secessionist conflicts in the former Soviet space and a detailed study of Russian sources and scholarship, it traces how Russian engagement with self-determination has changed over the past three decades. Ultimately, the book argues that Russia's approach to the right of peoples to self-determination should not only be understood in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric but in terms of a continuously assumed regional hegemony and exceptionalism, based on balance-of-power considerations.