R2P, Human Rights, and the Perils of a Bad Human Rights Intervention

in Global Responsibility to Protect
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article evaluates the effects certain interventions, namely various types of third party peacekeeping missions, have had on the future human rights practices of countries experiencing civil conflict. I argue that peacekeeping with (a) an un mandate or (b) a strong civilian or humanitarian focus are the only types of missions that should cause gains in human rights performance; these missions are aligned with R2P goals. Using a cross-national sample of countries experiencing civil conflict from 1960 to 2013, I find much evidence that R2P-aligned peacekeeping missions can be a positive force for future human rights performance within countries that have experienced civil conflict, even after we account for the factors that led to the mission in the first place. Advocacy efforts in support of R2P must be careful to call for only interventions with un support and/or clear humanitarian objectives.

R2P, Human Rights, and the Perils of a Bad Human Rights Intervention

in Global Responsibility to Protect

Sections

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Number of countries with civil conflicts and third-party peacekeeping missions over time

  • View in gallery

    Number of countries with civil conflicts and R2P-related peacekeeping missions over time

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 180 173 15
Full Text Views 181 181 0
PDF Downloads 61 61 0
EPUB Downloads 4 4 0