All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty: A Story of Norm Emergence, Contestation and Displacement in the Security Council
Unformatted Document Text:  Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty:  Norm Emergence, Contestation and Displacement in the Security Council Carrie Booth Walling University of Minnesota Prepared for delivery at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science  Association, August 28-31, 2008 DRAFT – please do not cite without author permission Contemporary international society is increasingly concerned with human rights.  Beginning in 1991, the United Nations Security Council authorized, in several cases, the use of  military force to end gross human rights violations in sovereign states without their consent.  These authorizations signal that state observance of minimal human rights standards is an  increasingly significant component of state responsibility within the global system of states.  The  authorizations marked a dramatic shift in both state practice and state justifications with regard to  military interventions.  During the Cold War, for example, the Security Council not only failed to  halt mass killing, it also sanctioned states that intervened to halt the bloodshed in neighboring  states, despite positive humanitarian motives or effects.  These include the Indian intervention in  East Pakistan in 1971, the Tanzanian intervention in Uganda in 1979 and the Vietnamese  intervention in Cambodia in 1979. 1   Intervening states justified military incursions to the  Security Council by appealing to principles of sovereignty, self defense and the protection of  vital interests, not human rights, even though both sovereignty and human rights principles are  enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  This was the case even when underlying motives for  military intervention were in part humanitarian. 2   Yet beginning in the 1990s the Security  Council itself justified its authorizations for the use of military force against non-consenting  1  Robert H. Jackson, “Armed Humanitarianism,” International Journal XLVIII (Autumn 1993): 588.  For a more  detailed discussion of these cases see Nicholas Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 2   Wheeler Saving Strangers.  Martha Finnemore. The Purposes of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of  Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003). 1

Authors: Walling, Carrie.
first   previous   Page 1 of 39   next   last



background image
Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty: 
Norm Emergence, Contestation and Displacement in the Security Council
Carrie Booth Walling
University of Minnesota
Prepared for delivery at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science 
Association, August 28-31, 2008
DRAFT – please do not cite without author permission
Contemporary international society is increasingly concerned with human rights. 
Beginning in 1991, the United Nations Security Council authorized, in several cases, the use of 
military force to end gross human rights violations in sovereign states without their consent. 
These authorizations signal that state observance of minimal human rights standards is an 
increasingly significant component of state responsibility within the global system of states.  The 
authorizations marked a dramatic shift in both state practice and state justifications with regard to 
military interventions.  During the Cold War, for example, the Security Council not only failed to 
halt mass killing, it also sanctioned states that intervened to halt the bloodshed in neighboring 
states, despite positive humanitarian motives or effects.  These include the Indian intervention in 
East Pakistan in 1971, the Tanzanian intervention in Uganda in 1979 and the Vietnamese 
intervention in Cambodia in 1979.
  Intervening states justified military incursions to the 
Security Council by appealing to principles of sovereignty, self defense and the protection of 
vital interests, not human rights, even though both sovereignty and human rights principles are 
enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  This was the case even when underlying motives for 
military intervention were in part humanitarian.
  Yet beginning in the 1990s the Security 
Council itself justified its authorizations for the use of military force against non-consenting 
1
 Robert H. Jackson, “Armed Humanitarianism,” International Journal XLVIII (Autumn 1993): 588.  For a more 
detailed discussion of these cases see Nicholas Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in 
International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
2
 
Wheeler Saving Strangers.  Martha Finnemore. The Purposes of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of 
Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003).
1


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 1 of 39   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.