As the United Nationsa adoption of the responsibility to protect (R2P) acted as a basis for more effective humanitarian intervention?
Please feel free to change my contents if you are not sure or happy about it. You can add more books that you think its important. You did the dissertation proposal for me so here is the order number 676636.In case. This is an International Relations and Politics dissertation. Please use critical theories such Liberal, Realist ecta¦ Strictly need in 30days (14.03.2013) please.
The aim of the dissertation is to examine the argument regarding military intervention approved by state(s) with the goal of preventing and stopping holocaust, uncivilised violations of human rights abuses stirring against citizens of another state with or without the crowd stateas permission. Therefore, human right lie at the nature of the argument, causing in the research assumed, examining the doctrine of humanitarians interventions promoting as involvement by an alliance of states to defend and reserve those human rights. However, the disagreement surrounding unilateral humanitarian interventions by states is remarkable as it brings around the question of why that should ever been an issues, a?were the UNas Security Council doing its job instead of stepping apart and permitting their different political principles and personal interests influence their choices?a?.
Hence the foundation of responsibility to protect (R2P) apparently might have been held as an appeal of a new period as the norms authors tried to resolve some of the theoretical dilemmas deterring the a?old doctrinea?, such as sovereignty and lack of political will of the Security Council. One example of the profound effect that R2P had, was its effectively promotion of sovereignty as a responsibility, assigned upon states, binding them to ensure the defence of their citizensa human rights. Nevertheless a judicious examination of the R2P over the past decades exposes a minor flaw in that line of thinking, as the expression a?old wine in new bottlesa, which surely describes the predicament the principle of norm finds itself in again. The Libyan intervention and the current lack of implementation of the responsibility to protect in Syria allows evidence the fact that the apparition of humanitarian interventions reappears as the new norms finds its self-haunted by similar problems. Yet a conclusion emphasises that whilst we are still a long way from discovering the most effective way of guaranteeing the defence of human rights finished a savagely divided Security Council, one must be bright in holding the view that R2P has certainly gone a lot.
Chapter 1: Defining the term of Humanitarian Intervention
1.1 Defining the term of Humanitarian Intervention
1.2 Sovereignty as an authority
1.3 Human Rights v Sovereignty
1.4 Duty or right to intervene
1.5 Humanitarian Intervention in DR Congo
1.6 Inconsistencies of the Security Council
1.7 The lack of the legitimacy of unilateral humanitarian interventions
Chapter 2: The Responsibility to Protect
2.1 The Birth of R2P
2.2 Bridging the gap between Sovereignty and Human rights
2.3 R2Pa?s threefold agenda: prevent, respond, and rebuild.
2.4 The Security Councilas very important role in ensuring R2P survival
2.5 Legal authority outside the UN Charter?
2.6 Legal Status of R2P
Chapter 3: R2P in Libya and Cote daIvoire
3.1 Background of the Libyan and Cote daIvoire conflict
3.2 Implementation of the Responsibility to React
3.3 The positive impact of the interventions in elevating R2Pas profile
3.4 Questioning the legitimacy of the interventions
3.5 The problem of regime change
Chapter 4: The Future of R2P
4.1 The unresolved question of Syria
4.2 Where do we go from here? R2P after Syria
4.3 R2P reforms: making a?Never Againa a reality
Books to use
1. Badescu, C.G., 2010. Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: security and human rights. New York: Taylor and Francis e-Library.
2. Evans, G., 2009. The Responsibility to Protect Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All. Washington D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.
3. Fishel, S., 2000. A Critique of The Responsibility to Protect. Masters Thesis. Colorado State University.
4. Hilpold, P., 2012. Intervening in the Name of Humanity: R2P and the Power of Ideas. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17(1), pp.49-79.
5. Iqbal, Z., 2010. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): MONUCas Impending Withdrawal. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK
6. United Nations, 2012. Mission Statement. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK /shtml [
7. Vijay, M. & Abeysuriya, L., 2009. The UN Doctrine on the Responsibility to Protect. Kendal, 2009.
8. Samantha Power a?Bystanders to Genocidea?, The Atlantic Monthly (September 2001), electronic document availaible at doc.htm
12. Noele Crossley, a?The Responsibility to Protect in 2012: R2P fails in Syria, Brazilas a?RWPa
Emerges,a? Global Policy Journal (28 December 2012), electronic document available at
13. David Chandler, a?The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the a?Liberal Peace,aa?
International Peacekeeping, 11.1 (2004), pp. 59-81.
14. ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), The Responsibility
to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,
(Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001).
15. Dino Kritsiotis, a?Reappraising Policy Objections to Humanitarian Interventiona in Michigan Journal Of International Law (University of Michigan Law School 1998) 1007
16. Adam Roberts, a?The so-called a?Righta? of Humanitarian Interventiona (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 3, 42
17. Richard B Miller, a?Humanitarian Intervention, Altruism, and the Limits of Casuistrya (2000) 28(1)The Journal of Religious Ethics, 3-35
18. Alexander Volsky, a?Reconciling Human Rights and State Sovereignty, Justice and the Law in Humanitarian Interventionsa< Volsky.pdf>
19. Thomas Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention (London :Polity 2007) 7