Justified non-intervention? : international responsibility and grave humanitarian crises

Abstract

The traditional debate concerning humanitarian intervention has changed since the publication of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report. This thesis addresses both the debate before the publication of the R2P report and the report itself by examining in-depth the international responsibility, which the international community shares in relation to such grave humanitarian crises as genocide. It is argued that the debate before the R2P report made implicit assumptions about international responsibility. Moreover, international collective responsibility is examined both at a conceptual level and at a practical level, thus contributing to the discussion after the publication of the R2P report. It is argued that especially the conceptualization of international responsibility is lacking in the report, and this thesis suggests a conceptualization of international collective responsibility, which is then modeled in the second half of this thesis. Furthermore, the responsibility model and its functioning are illustrated first with the help of a thought experiment and then by examining the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and some of the international responses to the tragedy. The responsibility model serves also as a tool for evaluating the international responses, and thus the justifications of non-intervention are assessed. On a higher level this thesis contributes to an understanding of the functioning of international politics. For example, the thesis argues for a particular understanding of the international community as well as state practice within the community. Moreover, the thesis addresses some of the roles that states have and some of the expectations that we have of states at the international level. Finally, the use of discretion in practicing international politics is an underlying theme of this thesis, thus addressing both what is the politics in international politics and how it is or should be conducted.