首页> 外文OA文献 >The selective enforcement of human rights? : the international response to violent humanitarian crises and gross violations of human rights in the Post-Cold-War era
【2h】

The selective enforcement of human rights? : the international response to violent humanitarian crises and gross violations of human rights in the Post-Cold-War era

机译:有选择地执行人权? :后冷战时代对暴力人道主义危机和严重侵犯人权的国际反应

摘要

"How did the international community respond to violent humanitarian crises and gross violations of human rights after the end of the Cold War? While from an optimistic perspective on global governance it is argued that humanitarian crises have been increasingly addressed, skeptics maintain that this response has been highly selective. However, we know very little about the actual extent of selectivity, since so far the international community's reaction to humanitarian crises has not been systematically analyzed. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap by empirically examining the extent and nature of the selectivity. To do so, I identify the most severe humanitarian crises in the Post-Cold War era and examine whether and how the international community has responded to these crises. Concerning response, different modes of action, ranging from humanitarian aid to military intervention, and different actors, viz. states, international institutions, and NGOs, will be taken into account. This approach leads to a more precise picture of selectivity: While the international community responded inconsistently to human suffering, the extent of selectivity is smaller than often claimed, and none of the crises identified here remained completely unaddressed. At a more theoretical level this means that humanitarian norms matter though their impact varies significantly. Why? To understand the politics of selectivity it does thus not suffice to show that humanitarian norms matter: rather, we need to understand why and under what circumstances they do so and, conversely, why and under what circumstances they do not. Therefore, factors that are likely to impact upon the strength of norms-countervailing power considerations, economic interests and institutional path dependencies-will be taken into account in further research on selectivity." (author's abstract)
机译:“冷战结束后,国际社会如何应对暴力人道主义危机和严重侵犯人权的行为?尽管从全球治理的乐观角度来看,有人认为人道主义危机已得到越来越多的解决,但持怀疑态度的人坚持认为,这种反应已经选择性很高,但是我们对选择性的实际程度了解甚少,因为到目前为止国际社会对人道主义危机的反应还没有得到系统的分析,本文的目的是通过实证研究范围和性质来填补这一空白。为此,我确定了冷战后时代最严重的人道主义危机,并研究了国际社会是否以及如何应对这些危机。干预,不同的参与者,包括国家,国际机构和非政府组织,将被纳入t。这种方法可以使人们更加准确地了解选择性:尽管国际社会对人类苦难的反应不一致,但是选择性的程度要小于通常所说的范围,而且这里没有发现任何危机可以完全解决。从理论上讲,这意味着尽管人道主义规范的影响差异很大,但也很重要。为什么?因此,要理解选择性政治,就不足以表明人道主义准则很重要:相反,我们需要了解为什么这样做以及在什么情况下这样做,反之,则为什么不这样做。因此,在进一步研究选择性的过程中,将考虑可能影响规范强度的因素,包括反权力的因素,经济利益和制度路径的依赖性。”(作者摘要)

著录项

  • 作者

    Binder Martin;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2010
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 入库时间 2022-08-20 20:11:43

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号