R2P vs. Suveränitet, En jämförande fallstudie av argumentationen inför interventionerna i Kosovo och Libyen
(2015) STVK02 20142Department of Political Science
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Världen blir alltmer globaliserad och statsgränsen har inte samma betydelse. Det internationella samfundet växer snabbt där stater blandar sig i varandras angelägenheter alltmer. Humanitära interventioner sker i större utsträckning och intresset att ingripa har ökat mycket senaste åren. Uppsatsen ämnar göra en jämförande fallstudie med interventionerna Kosovo och Libyen som studieobjekt. Med utgångspunkt i teorin om tre olika traditioner att resonera kring humanitära interventioner, realism, rationalism och revolutionism, analyseras FN:s permanenta medlemsstaters argument inför interventionerna i respektive fall. Det internationella samfundets inställning till interventioner tycks ha genomgått en förändring genom åren med påverkan av... (More)
- Världen blir alltmer globaliserad och statsgränsen har inte samma betydelse. Det internationella samfundet växer snabbt där stater blandar sig i varandras angelägenheter alltmer. Humanitära interventioner sker i större utsträckning och intresset att ingripa har ökat mycket senaste åren. Uppsatsen ämnar göra en jämförande fallstudie med interventionerna Kosovo och Libyen som studieobjekt. Med utgångspunkt i teorin om tre olika traditioner att resonera kring humanitära interventioner, realism, rationalism och revolutionism, analyseras FN:s permanenta medlemsstaters argument inför interventionerna i respektive fall. Det internationella samfundets inställning till interventioner tycks ha genomgått en förändring genom åren med påverkan av principen R2P, där staters suveränitet fått mindre betydelse medan mänskliga rättigheter väger tyngre. Utifrån argumenten tycks R2P haft en betydelse, dock inte så stor som förväntat. Den största skillnaden fallen emellan är val av retorik då fokus förflyttats från statssuveräniteten till skyldigheten att skydda befolkningen och mänskliga rättigheter. (Less)
- Abstract
- The world is moving towards globalization, and borders do not have the same meaning as they used to have. The international community is growing with countries getting more involved in each other’s businesses. Humanitarian interventions are getting more common and the will to intervene has grown. The purpose of this study is to do a comparative case study with the interventions in Kosovo and Libya as cases. Based on the theory of three different traditions of looking at humanitarian interventions, realism, rationalism and revolutionism, this study will analyze the arguments made by the permanent members of the UN in each of these two cases. The attitude shown by the international community concerning interventions seems to have changed... (More)
- The world is moving towards globalization, and borders do not have the same meaning as they used to have. The international community is growing with countries getting more involved in each other’s businesses. Humanitarian interventions are getting more common and the will to intervene has grown. The purpose of this study is to do a comparative case study with the interventions in Kosovo and Libya as cases. Based on the theory of three different traditions of looking at humanitarian interventions, realism, rationalism and revolutionism, this study will analyze the arguments made by the permanent members of the UN in each of these two cases. The attitude shown by the international community concerning interventions seems to have changed since the introduction of the R2P principle, where before, the sovereignty of states was considered most important, whereas now human rights are in focus. Based on the arguments made, R2P seems to have made a difference although it might not have been as big one. The most noticeable change between the two cases were found in the rhetoric used rather than the actions taken, as focus has changed from the sovereignty of states towards protection of civilians and the upholding of human rights. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4925540
- author
- Anderberg, Madeleine LU
- supervisor
-
- Ted Svensson LU
- organization
- course
- STVK02 20142
- year
- 2015
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Responsibility to protect, suveränitetsprincipen, humanitär intervention
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4925540
- date added to LUP
- 2015-02-28 17:08:57
- date last changed
- 2015-02-28 17:08:57
@misc{4925540,
abstract = {{The world is moving towards globalization, and borders do not have the same meaning as they used to have. The international community is growing with countries getting more involved in each other’s businesses. Humanitarian interventions are getting more common and the will to intervene has grown. The purpose of this study is to do a comparative case study with the interventions in Kosovo and Libya as cases. Based on the theory of three different traditions of looking at humanitarian interventions, realism, rationalism and revolutionism, this study will analyze the arguments made by the permanent members of the UN in each of these two cases. The attitude shown by the international community concerning interventions seems to have changed since the introduction of the R2P principle, where before, the sovereignty of states was considered most important, whereas now human rights are in focus. Based on the arguments made, R2P seems to have made a difference although it might not have been as big one. The most noticeable change between the two cases were found in the rhetoric used rather than the actions taken, as focus has changed from the sovereignty of states towards protection of civilians and the upholding of human rights.}},
author = {{Anderberg, Madeleine}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{R2P vs. Suveränitet, En jämförande fallstudie av argumentationen inför interventionerna i Kosovo och Libyen}},
year = {{2015}},
}