International Humanitarian Norms Research Articles

Non-Western Agency in Refugee Humanitarianism: Turkey and ‘Operation Provide Comfort’

Abstract The evolution of refugee humanitarianism is commonly studied in terms of critical junctures. One such historical moment is the creation of a ‘safe zone’ for Iraqi Kurdish refugees above the 36th parallel of Northern Iraq through the 1991 United Nations (UN) mission known as ‘Operation Provide Comfort.’ The UN intervention is widely accepted as a critical juncture because it marked the beginning of international humanitarianism's extra-territorial phase. ‘Operation Provide Comfort’ brought a paradigm shift in the management of displaced populations by means of introducing “preventive protection” as a novel approach combining protection with control as the idea is to keep refugees in their own countries and offer them help without the need to cross an international border. The standard narrative underlines Western historical priority by attributing the preventive protection to a single source of ideas and processes stemming from the West. Drawing on postcolonial research, this paper argues for recognizing the agency of the non-West in the formulation and execution of the safe haven concept as a historical milestone. More specifically, it demonstrates the pioneering role that Turkey played through international debates and diplomatic action, which culminated into the new episode of refugee humanitarianism. The findings also invite us to revisit current explanations of the evolution of international humanitarian norms by showing the entanglement of refugee protection on the one hand, and domestic and regional questions of ethnicity and counter-insurgency on the other.

Various Mechanisms for Implementing International Humanitarian Law

Although international humanitarian law has been constantly developed in the direction of strengthening the protection of victims of armed conflict after the two World Wars, one of the most important and difficult issues facing the international community to this day is to effectively secure the implementation of such developed international humanitarian law. To this end, the International Committee of the Red Cross has tried to enhance the effectiveness of the mechanism for securing the implementation of international humanitarian law until recently. Nevertheless, it remains one of the key challenges facing the international community. At the time of the outbreak of the Korean War, the four Geneva Conventions in 1949 had yet to take effect, so the major international humanitarian norms that South Korea and other belligerent parties had to comply with were only the Hague Regulation of 1907. In particular, the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949, i.e. the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners, was applied as a de facto guideline to the extent that the UN commander ordered to comply scrupulously , and later Korea ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as two additional protocols. In South Korea s security situation, which is still in a armistice and has to prepare for armed conflict, “the importance of exploring ways of enhancing and ensuring the effectiveness of mechanisms of compliance with international humanitarian law, with a view to strengthening legal protection for all victims of armed conflict” needs to be further emphasized. In order to secure the effectiveness of the mechanism for implementing international humanitarian law, multilateral efforts by a number of actors are required. However, for this, above all, the will of individual States, which are the original subjects of international law, is important. Until recently, discussions on how to improve the implementation of international humanitarian law have continued through intergovernmental procedures, but revising existing international humanitarian law more thoroughly or introducing a new implementation mechanism does not ensure its effectiveness. Rather, efforts by States to thoroughly comply with the existing mechanism of implementation of international humanitarian law, whether individually or collectively, should be preceded through more organized and diverse cooperation. This paper comprehensively summarizes the mechanisms for securing the implementation of the current international humanitarian law and examines the implementation of Korea in each mechanism. Such discussions will provide the theoretical basis necessary to make the most of and develop the existing international humanitarian law compliance mechanism.

Revolutionary Law Abidance: Kachin Rebel Governance and the Adoption of ihl in Resistance to Myanmar State Violence

Although armed opposition actors are increasingly prevalent within contemporary conflicts, ethnographies seeking to understand and explain their relationship with international law are scarce. While scholars highlight the state-centric nature of international law, discussing at length how it privileges state over non-state actors, few examine the way rebels perceive and relate to the international legal system. Drawing on seven months of field research among Kachin civil society and the Kachin Independence Organisation / Army (kio/A), this article demonstrates how the kio/A’s nascent engagement with international law is being strategically pursued as part of a broader rebel governance project. Ethnographic research exposes the oft neglected rebel perspective. It reveals how rebels interact with international humanitarian norms as a means to facilitate and mediate relations with both local and international actors, in an attempt to promote nation building aspirations and thereby strengthen resistance to state violence.

Rise and Decline of International Rule of Law: Case of Non-State Armed Actors

This paper assesses the rise and decline of international rule of law in the case of non-state armed actors. Both signs of rise and signs of decline of international rule of law show in the case of non- state armed actors. Signs of rise include the expansion of coverage of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law, as well as international legal argumentation and rhetoric made by non-state armed groups. Some non-state armed actors express that they are governed by IHL in public statements or bilateral agreements with international actors, partly acknowledging universality of international humanitarian norms, and sometimes act as such. Signs of decline in the international rule of law also show – although some of them can be seen as business-as-usual – privileging of military advantage, instrumental use of international law (as justification and local interpretations), as well as conflicting understanding of IHL between local and global norms. The multiplicity of non-state actors also portends the decline of international rule of law, with the proliferation of many non-organized groups without legitimacy-seeking motivations.

Evitable Conflicts, Inevitable Technologies? The Science and Fiction of Robotic Warfare and IHL

This article contributes to a special symposium on science fiction and international law, examining the blurry lines between science and fiction in the policy discussions concerning the military use of lethal autonomous robots. In response to projects that attempt to build military robots that comport with international humanitarian law [IHL], we investigate whether and how the introduction of lethal autonomous robots might skew international humanitarian norms. Although IHL purports to be a technologically-neutral approach to calculating a proportionate, discriminate, and militarily necessary response, we contend that it permits a deterministic mode of thinking, expanding the scope of that which is perceived of as “necessary” once the technology is adopted. Consequently, we argue, even if lethal autonomous robots comport with IHL, they will operate as a force multiplier of military necessity, thus skewing the proportionality metric and amplifying new forms of destructive, lethal force.

International Conventions and Nonstate Actors

Whether international humanitarian norms are respected during and after civil conflict depends on the behavior of both governments and nonstate actors (NSAs). However, international conventions on the protection of civilians generally do not address NSAs, as such conventions are open only to the representatives of states. In a pioneering initiative, the nongovernmental organization Geneva Call has started to address this problem by soliciting NSAs to sign “deeds of commitment” to ban particular activities violating humanitarian norms. Focusing on the case of antipersonnel mines, we examine why NSAs would choose to sign conventions that limit their autonomy, and whether such conventions can change the behavior of governments and nonstate armed groups. We propose a game-theoretic model of how the interaction between governments and NSAs shape their incentives to commit to and comply with international humanitarian norms. Our empirical evidence highlights the importance of these interdependencies between governments and NSAs in the realm of humanitarian engagements.

Indian Foreign Policy and International Humanitarian Norms: A Role‐Theoretical Analysis

Although role theory has been widely used in the field of foreign policy analysis, it has never been comprehensively applied to the study of Indian foreign policy. This article analyzes major foreign policy speeches of Indian decision makers in an effort to identify salient national role conceptions. In the second part of the article, it is shown how in the process of emerging international humanitarian norms, inherent tensions between different role conceptions become aggravated. Thus, Indian foreign policy makers find themselves in the middle of intra‐ and inter‐role conflicts. Taking the Responsibility to Protect and International Criminal Law as examples, the article examines the way in which decision makers have tried to mitigate and to evade conflicting role‐derived expectations.

Politics and Islam in West Asia

Politics and <scp>I</scp>slam in <scp>W</scp>est <scp>A</scp>sia

Redefining Sovereignty for the 21st Century

In confronting the transformative nature of international institutions and global norms, this paper will address implications for sovereignty in the 21st century. Driven by transformative global human rights and humanitarian norms, multipolar alignment of power, authority and legitimacy, and the increasing influence of non-state actors, sovereignty has taken on characteristics previously unimagined, and is likely to align with continuing developments in human rights and democratic governance.Using rights-based analysis, emerging notions of sovereignty will be explored with particular reference to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm. The effects of interdependency on sovereignty will be examined, in addition to the changing nature of the relationship between state and non-state actors. Furthermore, the relationship between the Global North and South will be explored to demonstrate hierarchies of power and claims to legitimacy in the inter-state system. As modern conflicts take on increasingly irregular, asymmetric, and intra-state characteristics, claims to absolute authority by states have begun to be formally subordinated by international human rights and humanitarian norms. Conceived as a liberal compromise between absolute mutual non-interference and the international society’s obligation to protect civilians from mass atrocities, the role of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm will be assessed as a major development in the emergence of post-national sovereignty.

AUTHORITY TO PROSCRIBE AND PUNISH INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

Although criminal jurisdiction is usually exercised by governments, offences can also be proscribed by international law, and punishment can be imposed by international tribunals. This article critically examines the legitimacy of such exercises of international criminal jurisdiction. It reasons that criminal law can plausibly be justified as a cooperative institution that achieves the public good of a rule of law, with its attendant benefits of social peace and equal dignity of persons. It then argues that such a beneficial rule of law requires a punishing authority with the executive capacity to protect those it claims to regulate. It would follow that criminal prohibitions may not be justifiable if they cannot be enforced systematically. Because the international legal system generally lacks the executive capacity required for a rule of law, the article suggests that international criminal punishment is justifiable as supportive of a rule of law only in rare circumstances. Finally, the article considers whether an alternative expressive rationale can, nevertheless, justify occasional prosecutions as useful in legitimizing international humanitarian norms. It questions whether the expressive benefits of such prosecutions can outweigh the expressive risks of promising protection the international legal system cannot deliver.

Revisiting the Role of Private Military and Security Companies

This essay addresses the role of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in security governance. In this context, it offers a historical overview of some of the main developments in the evolution of private warfare and critically discusses some of the key challenges confronting the quest for holding PMSCs accountable in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian norms.

‘U.S. Asylum Decisions: Who You Face on the Bench is as Important as What You Face at Home’

We engage theoretical debates within two sub-fields of political science in order to understand U.S. asylum decisions. First, there is significant disagreement among international relations scholars over whether U.S. asylum policy is primarily shaped by its strategic and material interests or by international humanitarian norms. Much of the theory and the existing analysis assumes a unitary actor, and focuses on asylum outcomes as annual averages for all applicants from a particular country. However, recent research has undermined this assumption. For example, an individual’s chance of asylum seems to be driven, at least in part, by the geographical location of the court or the particular judge the asylum seeker (see TRAC 2006 and Ramji-Nogales et al. 2007). This paper moves the theoretical exploration beyond the traditional unitary actor assumption of international relations models to the more appropriate micro level of analysis – the individual immigration judges’ decisions. Second, we seek to draw upon the judicial behavior literature which offers insights into the judicial actors, and we join that field’s debate about the extent to which the judges’ policy preferences shape their decisions. Specifically, we examine case outcomes of individual asylum seekers before judges in the U.S. immigration courts during the years 1997-2004 (329,678 case outcomes). Our time period captures the segment of cases that were decided between two significant changes in immigration law: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of September 1996 and the Real ID Act of May 2005. We conclude that both norms and interests matter in asylum decisions, even at the individual applicant level. Our analysis also suggests that it is does indeed matter which judge hears an applicant’s claims. This analysis suggests that judges’ decisions are influenced by prior socialization through a variety of professional experiences that may shape or reflect their policy preferences or values. The potential combined effect of judicial characteristics can substantially alter the applicants’ odds of a grant or denial, even while controlling for a variety of other factors.

International or transnational? Humanitarian action during the First World War

To what extent was a nascent international humanitarian sphere challenged by the rise of nationalist aid efforts during the First World War? How did wartime nationalisms influence humanitarian mobilisation? Taking the aid effort to prisoners of war as its central case study, this article contends that the similar evolution of national wartime charities in the different belligerent states was due to a transnational learning process, based on nationalism and reciprocity dynamics, rather than simply a manifestation of a shared culture of international humanitarianism. Comparing similar national aid actors in different countries highlights the fact that the national aid response did not develop solely as a result of ‘international’ norms, but often on the basis of other motivations, predominantly the desire to help the war effort. This transnational learning process has been identified in some historiographical analysis as evidence for the existence of shared international humanitarian norms within belligerent countries; in fact it is also evidence that certain welfare sectors – for example, registration of the missing and dead, military aid bureaucracies or local scouting or Red Cross associations – evolved similarly in response to the logistical challenges created by total war. This paper contends that the nationalist-orientated evolution of charity at the local level during the war created increasing tensions between the national and international humanitarian spheres and it argues that it is necessary to explore this contested evolution of wartime charity in order to understand the complex nature of wartime mobilisation.

Engaging with Armed Groups: A Human Rights Field Perspective from Nepal

AbstractTheoretical uncertainty surrounding whether and to what extent non-state actors are obligated to abide by international human rights and humanitarian norms has impacted the policies and practices of human rights field presences, including those of the United Nations. The paper presents the case of Nepal, where international organizations have been forced by circumstance to engage with a range of non-state armed groups, to illustrate how current limitations of human rights law regarding non-state actors impact the work of human rights field monitors. Drawing upon the global administrative law paradigm, it argues for the development of a 'soft law' framework governing human rights aspects of international organizations' engagement with armed groups.

Neo-Humanitarianism: The Role of International Humanitarian Norms and Organizations in Contemporary Conflict

The circumstances and nature of humanitarianism have changed in recent years. The traditional ideals of neutrality, impartiality, and independence have become myth. Rather than being at the margins of conflict, humanitarianism is now e mbedded within contemporary conflict. States use humanitarian norms and actors for their own ends, frequently as a response international pressure intervene in conflicts. Such actions, as well as those on the part of international humanitarian organizations and other nonstate actors, have altered the terrain of humanitarian action. KEYWORDS: armed conflict, humanitarianism, international humanitarian organizations, NGOs, norms. ********** On 7 October 2001, about two hours after the United States started bombing Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that one of the six goals of the military operations was to provide humanitarian relief Afghans suffering truly oppressive living conditions under the Taliban regime. (1) Given the fact that the Bush administration had portrayed the conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaida as a fight for national, and indeed civilizational, survival, why would Rumsfeld feel it necessary, or even desirable, include the seemingly unrelated issue of humanitarian relief as one of the major goals of the war? What I would like suggest is that global humanitarian action, and discourse over such action, has become such an increasingly visible feature of international relations that it has insinuated itself into a variety of political and operational situations. In fact, humanitarian norms have become so important that they force their way into the general discourse of war and peace. Furthermore, humanitarianism has become an extremely valuable public relations tool. Thus, a U.S. secretary of defense finds it useful use humanitarianism justify waging war in a remote corner of the world (from the perspective of the United States) and, in fact, may have felt normative pressure do so. In this article, I argue that because of the changing nature of conflict, and other broad changes in international relations, we are entering an era of what I call neo-humanitarianism, which is characterized by the embeddedness of humanitarianism within, rather than at the margins of, contemporary conflict. It is distinguished by the explicit manipulation of humanitarianism for political or military gain on the ground in a conflict or as a substitute for political and military action. As a result, international humanitarian organizations (IHOs) (2) have found themselves being manipulated by a wide range of actors in the middle of conflict. At the same time, they have participated in this transformation of humanitarianism. The main questions be addressed in this article are: Why is neutral humanitarianism increasingly becoming a fiction? Why do states turn humanitarian actors? What are the implications of state reliance on humanitarian actors? What are the effects on these organizations and on humanitarian action more broadly? How do IHOs affect the conflict environment? What role do humanitarian norms play in conflict today? One of the main humanitarian actors is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Traditional theory would suggest that such an organization, being part of an intergovernmental body, would simply carry out the wishes of the larger state-based body and, further, that it could have no independent effects itself. However, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, who look at the creation and role of international governmental organizations (IGOs) from sociological bureaucratic and constructivist perspectives point out that bureaucracies frequently do not do exactly what their originators intended them do. We accept this when discussing, for example, domestic foreign policy bureaucracies but still seem have a blind spot when it comes international bureaucratic actors. …

Exploring humanitarian law: Armed conflict and education for social cohesion

preliminary evidence from a variety of settings around the world indicates that a focus on the shared human experiences of people affected by armed conflict appears to respond to diverse educational needs in very different social and political settings. Education in humanitarian law fosters increased awareness of humanitarian issues in the face of the threat of armed conflict, encourages a shared sense of citizenship in post-conflict settings through the exploration of minimal international humanitarian norms, and heightens awareness of less contentious means of addressing social and political violence through the examination of various issues of global concern. In post-conflict and divided societies, education based on the exploration of humanitarian issues highlights the common human concerns that arise in times of armed conflict, concerns that are often obscured by politically and ideologically driven analyses. By developing a sense of shared destiny, education in humanitarian law can contribute to strengthening and rebuilding social cohesion.

Violations of International Humanitarian Norms during Armed Conflicts in the Former USSR

Violations of International Humanitarian Norms during Armed Conflicts in the Former USSR