Abstract
After Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in early May 2008, the ruling regime imposed conditions upon the receipt and entry of disaster relief. This was met by a significant amount of international condemnation, which was often bolstered by invocations of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The legalities of disaster aid refusal very quickly became a serious topic of academic and practitioner discourse. While the politics of aid donation is a much-studied terrain, the politics of aid refusal has, until recently, received less attention. However, a recent strain of research in political science has sought to remedy this imbalance. This article considers what international lawyers can draw from this discourse and whether such a perspective can inform legal reforms, notably those being currently proposed by the International Law Commission (ILC). As well as questioning assumptions regarding the apoliticism of disaster aid, this article also considers the links between humanitarianism and regime change, utilising the case study of Cyclone Nargis. The role of R2P and its muscular humanitarianism is also examined, as is the extent to which it informs the current ILC proposals. The final section of the article considers humanitarian perspectives and the waning influence of ‘new humanitarianism’, which challenged fundamental legal concepts of impartial, neutral, needs-based aid.
Highlights
After Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in May 2008, the governing regime refused to unconditionally allow entry of international aid
This article considers what international lawyers can draw from this discourse and whether such a perspective can inform legal reforms, notably those being currently proposed by the International Law Commission (ILC)
As well as questioning assumptions regarding the apoliticism of disaster aid, this article considers the links between humanitarianism and regime change, utilising the case study of Cyclone Nargis
Summary
After Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in May 2008, the governing regime refused to unconditionally allow entry of international aid. It acknowledges the perils of creating bold legal obligations of cooperation, which admit no nuance This latter point has become more significant in the light of the International Law Commission’s study regarding the protection of persons in the event of disasters.[11] this study was already underway by 2008, both Cyclone Nargis and R2P have undoubtedly influenced ILC discussions and the text of the emerging Draft Articles. Both evidence a strong persuasive trend towards international co-operation, to the extent of proposing legal consequences for “unjustifiable” or “arbitrary” aid refusals. Purely as a matter of formality, the authors of this article have chosen this characterisation of the state’s name
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
