Intervention med humanitärt syfte - en studie av omvärldens möjligheter i den humanitära katastrofen i Syrien
(2017) LAGF03 20172Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Under 1900-talet såg världen omfattande lidande bland mänskligheten i flera länder, vilka kulminerade i folkmord och massakrer under 1990-talet. Ett sätt som identifierades för att få ett slut på grymma brott var humanitära interventioner. En kommission, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), tillsattes år 2001 för att utreda begreppet. De presenterade i december samma år en ny folkrättslig princip kallad the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka om det är möjligt att folkrättsligt intervenera i Syrien med humanitärt syfte som grund och varför en sådan intervention inte har skett. Begreppet humanitära interventioner är inte definierat och har inte samma betydelse för... (More) - Under 1900-talet såg världen omfattande lidande bland mänskligheten i flera länder, vilka kulminerade i folkmord och massakrer under 1990-talet. Ett sätt som identifierades för att få ett slut på grymma brott var humanitära interventioner. En kommission, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), tillsattes år 2001 för att utreda begreppet. De presenterade i december samma år en ny folkrättslig princip kallad the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka om det är möjligt att folkrättsligt intervenera i Syrien med humanitärt syfte som grund och varför en sådan intervention inte har skett. Begreppet humanitära interventioner är inte definierat och har inte samma betydelse för olika forskare och stater. Det är inte en del av internationell sedvanerätt och inte heller en klar norm inom folkrätten. Det är därför främst R2P som kan bli möjligt i Syrien för en intervention med humanitära syften. R2P är en norm inom folkrätten, där intervention är möjlig i en annan stat efter säkerhetsrådets godkännande. Säkerhetsrådet har dock inte auktoriserat militär intervention i Syrien.
Slutsatsen som kan dras är att humanitära interventioner är ett för oklart begrepp som majoriteten av stater inte accepterat och som möjligen är på väg att försvinna. Principen om R2P är däremot tillämplig i Syrien. Mindre omfattande interventioner har skett, men inte en militär intervention och inget som påverkat konflikten nämnvärt. Varför det ser ut på detta sätt beror på flertalet faktorer, bland annat Ryssland och Kinas veto i säkerhetsrådet. Detta leder till frågan varför de använt sig av sin vetorätt. Svaret där är även det beroende av flera olika faktorer, en av vilka är interventionen i Libyen, som ledde till regimskifte. För att R2P ska fungera som ett verktyg för att förhindra grymma brott krävs en förändring, antingen av principen, staters inställning eller av säkerhetsrådets uppbyggnad. Det mest troliga är kanske avskaffandet av vetorätten vid situationer där intervention kan komma ifråga. (Less) - Abstract
- During the 20th century, the world saw humans suffering in many countries around the world. These sufferings ended in genocide and massacres during the 1990s. One way that was identified to end atrocity crimes was humanitarian interventions. A commission, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), was appointed in 2001 to investigate the concept. They presented a new principle within international law called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in December the same year.
The purpose of this essay is to research if it is possible in international law to intervene in Syria with a humanitarian purpose and why such an intervention has not happened. The concept of humanitarian intervention is unclear and does... (More) - During the 20th century, the world saw humans suffering in many countries around the world. These sufferings ended in genocide and massacres during the 1990s. One way that was identified to end atrocity crimes was humanitarian interventions. A commission, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), was appointed in 2001 to investigate the concept. They presented a new principle within international law called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in December the same year.
The purpose of this essay is to research if it is possible in international law to intervene in Syria with a humanitarian purpose and why such an intervention has not happened. The concept of humanitarian intervention is unclear and does not have the same meaning to different scholars and states. It is not part of international customary law and not a distinct norm in international law. That is why R2P is the most likely possibility to intervene with a humanitarian purpose in Syria. R2P is a relatively clear norm within international law, where intervention is possible in another state after authorization by the Security Council. However, the Security Council has not authorized a military intervention in Syria.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that the concept of humanitarian intervention is too unclear to use, the majority of states have not accepted it and the concept may be on its way to disappear. R2P is however applicable in Syria. Less extensive interventions have happened, but not military intervention and nothing that has notably affected the conflict. Why this is the case depends on many different elements, among others Russia and China´s veto in the Security Council. This leads to the question of why they have used their right to veto. That answer depends on many different elements, one of which is the intervention in Libya, that led to a regime change. For R2P to work as a tool to prevent atrocity crimes, a change is needed. Changing either the principle, states opinions or the Security Council’s structure may make R2P applicable in more situations. The most likely might be to abolish the right for the five permanent members of the Security Council to veto in situations where an intervention might happen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8930238
- author
- Karlström, Josefin LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Nilsson LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20172
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt, humanitära interventioner, R2P, rättsekonomi, rättssociologi, internationella relationer
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8930238
- date added to LUP
- 2018-02-06 11:52:14
- date last changed
- 2018-02-06 11:52:14
@misc{8930238,
abstract = {{During the 20th century, the world saw humans suffering in many countries around the world. These sufferings ended in genocide and massacres during the 1990s. One way that was identified to end atrocity crimes was humanitarian interventions. A commission, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), was appointed in 2001 to investigate the concept. They presented a new principle within international law called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in December the same year.
The purpose of this essay is to research if it is possible in international law to intervene in Syria with a humanitarian purpose and why such an intervention has not happened. The concept of humanitarian intervention is unclear and does not have the same meaning to different scholars and states. It is not part of international customary law and not a distinct norm in international law. That is why R2P is the most likely possibility to intervene with a humanitarian purpose in Syria. R2P is a relatively clear norm within international law, where intervention is possible in another state after authorization by the Security Council. However, the Security Council has not authorized a military intervention in Syria.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that the concept of humanitarian intervention is too unclear to use, the majority of states have not accepted it and the concept may be on its way to disappear. R2P is however applicable in Syria. Less extensive interventions have happened, but not military intervention and nothing that has notably affected the conflict. Why this is the case depends on many different elements, among others Russia and China´s veto in the Security Council. This leads to the question of why they have used their right to veto. That answer depends on many different elements, one of which is the intervention in Libya, that led to a regime change. For R2P to work as a tool to prevent atrocity crimes, a change is needed. Changing either the principle, states opinions or the Security Council’s structure may make R2P applicable in more situations. The most likely might be to abolish the right for the five permanent members of the Security Council to veto in situations where an intervention might happen.}},
author = {{Karlström, Josefin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Intervention med humanitärt syfte - en studie av omvärldens möjligheter i den humanitära katastrofen i Syrien}},
year = {{2017}},
}