Connecting-Africa | Find publications

Advanced search

Find:


Title How Are NATO's Humanitarian Interventions Justified? Case Studies of Kosovo and Libya
Full text http://hdl.handle.net/1887/75451
Date 2019
Author(s) Jafarli, Farid
Contributor(s) Lukač, Morana
Abstract This thesis will answer the question how are NATO's humanitarian interventions justified through studying the interventions of Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011. While these interventions took place almost a decade apart and aimed to prevent atrocities committed by autocratic regimes, they caused a significant number of civilian casualties and as a result, were subject to controversy among scholars, as well as civil societies around the world. The work of Richard Falk has highlighted that these controversies were centered around the debate regarding the moral, legal and political justifications of the interventions. Hence, they are used as the basis of the conceptual framework in this thesis. Accordingly, in order to answer the question of how humanitarian interventions are justified, a qualitative research method has been used to identify, compare and contrast NATO's justification for humanitarian interventions through moral, political and legal perspectives. The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine and the concept of responsible sovereignty have been found to be specifically prominent justifications. These serve to overcome the mandates of international humanitarian law and the United Nations Charter, which establish the legal limits of humanitarian intervention in sovereign states.
Subject(s) Humanitarian Intervention, R2P, Responsible Sovereignty, NATO
Language en-US
Type of publication Bachelor thesis
Repository Leiden - University of Leiden
Added to C-A: 2019-07-24;10:05:48