The practice of humanitarian military action has changed markedly in the 21st century when compared with the 1990s. This essay explores three broad trends that have shaped this evolution. First, the UN has adopted the protection of civilians as a central element of its agenda and as a guiding principle for reforming its peace operations and its responses to atrocities such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Second, major powers have played a central role as belligerents or patrons of belligerents in many of the worst conflicts of the last two decades. And third, the wealthy Western states with the greatest resources and military capabilities for ambitious humanitarian operations have substantially reduced their direct contributions to these missions. Together, these developments have shifted the balance of responsibility and effort for humanitarian military operations toward the UN and developing countries; constrained the ambitions of these missions; limited what they can accomplish and contributed to gaps between the expectations they create and the protection they are able to deliver; and discouraged meaningful action in response to many of the century’s most devastating conflicts.
Since the end of the Cold War, Iraq has faced three international interventions. While their humanitarian component was a secondary – and at times, arguable – factor, they all played a central role in normative debates on the extent to which states should protect populations from mass atrocities beyond their borders (and what that actually entails), making Iraq a central piece of the human protection puzzle. In addition to analysing how Iraq’s fate has played a key part in the development of human protection over the years, the article argues that France had a central role in both the interventions and the normative debates they generated, and investigates its role in depth. By doing so, it deepens our understanding of human protection, France’s foreign policy and Iraq’s development.
Bringing into focus the two formal debates on the Responsibility to Protect that took place in 2009 and 2018, this article identifies the approaches of member states towards the humanitarian use of force by locating it in the UN’s deliberations on R2P. To this end, the article compares and contrasts country statements in order to trace states’ general approach towards humanitarian intervention on the basis of their reflections on R2P. Following from this, the article examines whether or not states’ approaches to humanitarian intervention have been transforming in the twenty-first century, and evaluates how the humanitarian use of force is perceived in relation to the R2P framework that was embraced by the member states of the UN General Assembly in 2005, and how this affects the future of R2P.
On the occasion of the centenary of the International Labour Organization (ILO), this 11th special issue of
International Development Policy explores the Organization's capacity for action, its effectiveness and its ability to adapt and innovate. The collection of thirteen articles, written by authors from around the world, covers three broad areas: the ILO’s historic context and contemporary challenges; approaches and results in relation to labour and social protection; and the changes shaping the future of work. The articles highlight the progress and gaps to date, as well as the context and constraints faced by the ILO in its efforts to respond to the new dilemmas and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, with regard to labour and social protection.
Contributors are Juliette Alenda-Demoutiez, Abena Asomaning Antwi, Zrampieu Sarah Ba, Stefano Bellucci, Thomas Biersteker, Filipe Calvão, Gilles Carbonnier, Nancy Coulson, Antonio Donini, Christophe Gironde, Karl Hanson, Mavis Hermanus, Velibor Jakovleski, Scott Jerbi, Sandrine Kott, Marieke Louis, Elvire Mendo, Eric Otenyo, Agnès Parent-Thirion, Sizwe Phakathi, Paul Stewart, Kaveri Thara, Edward van Daalen, Kees van der Ree, Patricia Vendramin, Christine Verschuur.
The Right to Appeal in International Criminal Law Dražan Djukić describes appeal proceedings in international criminal law and evaluates them against human rights benchmarks. While international criminal courts and tribunals mainly comply with these benchmarks, they have fallen short in certain important areas.
Despite their importance to the legal process, appeal proceedings tend to receive limited attention. On the basis of benchmarks arising from international human rights law, Dražan Djukić systematically assesses the law and practice concerning appeal proceedings in international criminal law.
In recent norm research, the question of the relationship between norm contestation and norm dynamics has been the subject of substantial debate. However, until now too little attention has been paid to the question of how and when contestation intensifies. Based on the differentiation between applicatory and validity contestation, this article proposes a specific mechanism for intensifying contestation—understood as an increase in the contestation itself as well as an extension to its validity level—by treating norm modification as an intervening variable. The main argument is that norm modification may be necessary to reconcile different interpretations of norms. Consequently, if norm modification does not occur, norm contestation may intensify. This article elaborates this mechanism by examining the controversies involving the International Criminal Court (icc). It shows that contestation began at a low and applicatory level but intensified after several attempts at norm modification had failed.
Contestation is currently one major field of research on international norms: does contestation strengthen or weaken a norm? What role does international law play in this regard? How do norm proponents and norm challengers change their strategies in norm contestation processes? Drawing on constructivist perspectives as well as on international law, the articles in this Special Issue explore the effects of norm contestation and its dynamics by analysing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the responsibility to prosecute from different theoretical perspectives.
Recurring contestation of the application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in conflict situations has given rise to assessments that portray R2P as not a norm at all, but rather a norm-to-be or one in decay. This article aims to show that norms do not lose their validity because they are contested. All norms rely on applicatory discourses to establish their appropriateness for given situations. Contestation regarding their application can even strengthen norms when it provokes learning processes. Norm validity is at risk if contestation radicalises, that is, turns into norm justification. As yet there are only few signs of radicalisation of the contestation of R2P.