Human Rights Review

, 10:327 | Cite as

Humanitarian Crises and the International Politics of Selectivity

Article

Abstract

How has the international community responded to humanitarian crises after the end of the Cold War? While optimistic ideational perspectives on global governance stress the importance of humanitarian norms and argue that humanitarian crises have been increasingly addressed, more skeptical realist accounts point to material interests and maintain that these responses have remained highly selective. In empirical terms, 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 examined. This article addresses this gap by empirically examining the extent and the nature of the selectivity of humanitarian crises. To do so, the most severe humanitarian crises in the post-Cold War era are identified and examined for whether and how the international community responded. This study considers different modes of crisis response (ranging from inaction to military intervention) and different actors (including states, international institutions, and nonstate actors), yielding a more precise picture of the alleged “selectivity gap” and a number of theoretical implications for contemporary global security governance.

Keywords

Humanitarian crises Human rights Selectivity Humanitarian intervention 

References

  1. Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. “Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review.” European Journal of International Relations 10 (3): 437–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy, Alex J. 2003. “Power, Rules and Argument: New Approaches to Humanitarian Intervention.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 57 (3): 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, Martin. 2007. “Norms vs. Rationality. Why Democracies use Private Military Companies in Civil Wars.” In Private Military and Security Companies: Chances, Problems, Pitfalls and Prospects, ed. Thomas Jäger and Gerhard Kümmel. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  4. Boli, John and George M. Thomas. 1999. Constructing World Culture. International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boulden, Jane. 2006. “Double Standards, Distance and Disengagement: Collective Legitimization in the Post-Cold War Security Council.” Security Dialogue 37 (3): 409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brilmayer, Lea. 1995. “What′s the Matter With Selective Intervention?” Arizona Law Review 37 (4): 955–70.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, Chris. 2003. “Selective Humanitarianism: In Defense of Inconsistency.” In Ethics and Foreign Intervention, ed. Deen K. Chatterjee and Don E. Scheid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brysk, Alison. 1993. “From Above and Below: Social Movements, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies 26 (3): 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardenas, Sonia. 2004. “Norm Collision: Explaining the Effects of International Human Rights Pressure on State Behavior.” International Studies Review 6 (2): 213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chayes, Abram and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1995. The New Sovereignty. Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge, MA/London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change.” International Organization 55 (3): 553–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesterman, Simon. 2001. Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chojnacki, Sven. 2002. “Kriege und Katastrophen im internationalen System. Empirische Trends und neue Herausforderungen.” In Humanitäre Hilfe statt Politik? Neue Herausforderungen für ein altes Politikfeld, ed. Wolf-Dieter Eberwein and Peter Runge. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1999. The New Military Humanism. Lessons from Kosovo. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cortright, D. and G. A. Lopez. 2000. The Sanctions Decade. Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Damrosch, Lori Fisler. 2000. “The inevitability of selective response? Principles to guide urgent international action.” In Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship, ed. Albrecht Schnabel and Ramesh C. Thakur. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  17. de Jonge Oudraat, Chantal. 1996. “The United Nations and Internal Conflict.” In The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, ed. Michael E. Brown. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. de Jonge Oudraat, Chantal. 2000. “Making Sanctions Work.” Survival 42 (3): 105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiPrizio, Robert C. 2002. Armed Humanitarians. U.S. Interventions from Northern Iraq to Kosovo. Baltimore, MD/London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Donnelly, Jack. 1998. International Human Rights. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Duffield, Mark. 2005. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  22. Durch, William J. 1993. The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping. Case Studies and Comparative Analysis. New York, NY: St. Martin′s Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law′s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  24. Elliott, Kimberly Ann. 2005. “Trends in Economic Sanctions Policy: Challenges to Conventional Wisdom.” In International Sanctions. Between Words and Wars in the Global System, ed. Peter Wallensteen and Carina Staibano. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  25. Elliott, Kimberly A., Jeffrey J. Schott, Gary C. Hufbauer, and Barbara Oegg. 2007. Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  26. Evans, Mark. 2002. “Selectivity, Imperfect Obligations and the Character of Humanitarian Morality.” In Human Rights and Military Intervention, ed. Alexander Moseley and Richard Norman. Hants: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Feste, Karen A. 1992. Expanding the Frontiers: Superpower Intervention in the Cold War. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Finnemore, Martha 2000. “Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention.” Paper presented at Symposium on the Norms and Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Forsythe, David P. 2006. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Franck, Thomas M. 1970. “Who killed Article 2 (4)? Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States.” American Journal of International Law 64 809–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Franck, Thomas M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Franck, Thomas M. 1995. Fairness In International Law And Institutions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gibney, Mark, Cornett, Linda, and Wood, Reed. 2008. “Political Terror Scale 1976–2006.” (December 3, 2008). Available at: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org.
  36. Gilligan, Michael J. and Stephen J. Stedman. 2003. “Where Do the Peacekeepers Go?” International Studies Review 5 (4): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haass, Richard N. 1999. “What to Do With American Primacy.” Foreign Affairs 78 (5): 37–49.Google Scholar
  38. Harbom, Lotta and Peter Wallensteen. 2005. “Armed Conflict and Its International Dimensions, 1946–2004.” Journal of Peace Research 42 (5): 623–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hasenclever, Andreas. 2001. Die Macht der Moral in der internationalen Politik. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  40. Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitical Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hirsch, John L. and Robert B. Oakley. 1995. Somalia and Operation Restore Hope. Reflections on Peacekeeping and Peacemaking. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  42. Human Security Centre. 2005. “Human Security Report 2005. War and Peace in the 21st Century.” The University of British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  43. Independent International Commission on Kosovo. 2001. The Kosovo Report. Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). 2001. “The Responsibility to Protect.” International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  45. Jackson, Jesse. 1999. “A Tale Of Two Countries. Sierra Leone Vs. Kosovo: Why Isn′t America Paying More Attention To The War In Africa?” Newsweek, 7 June 1999.Google Scholar
  46. Jentleson, Bruce W. and Rebecca L. Britton. 1998. “Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (4): 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaldor, Mary. 2001. “A Decade of Humanitarian Intervention: The Role of Global Civil Society.” In Global Civil Society 2001, ed. Helmut K. Anheier, M. Glasius, and Mary Kaldor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Klotz, Audie. 1996. Norms in International Relations. The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Krauss, Stefan. 2000. “The European Parliament in EU External Relations: The Customs Union with Turkey.” European Foreign Affairs Review 5 215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kreutz, Joakim. 2005. “Hard Measures by a Soft Power? Sanctions Policy of the European Union.” Paper 45, Bonn International Center for Conversion, Bonn.Google Scholar
  53. Kritsiotis, Dino. 2004. “When states use armed force.” In The Politics of International Law, ed. Christian Reus-Smit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kühne, Winrich. 2000. “Humanitäre Konfliktlagen in der globalisierten Welt und die Notwendigkeit zur Fortentwicklung des Völkerrechts.” In Vom Ewigen Frieden und vom Wohlstand der Nationen, ed. Ulrich Menzel. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  55. Liese, Andrea. 2006. Staaten am Pranger. Zur Wirkung internationaler Regime auf innerstaatliche Menschenrechtspolitik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  56. Linklater, Andrew. 1998. The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  57. Macrae, Joanna. 2002. “Analysis and synthesis.” In The New Humanitarianisms: A Review of Trends in Global Humanitarian Action, ed. Joanna Macrae. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  58. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52 (4): 943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1967. “To Intervene or Not to Intervene.” Foreign Affairs 45 (3): 425–36.Google Scholar
  60. Nafziger, E. W., Frances Stewart and Raimo Väyrynen. 2000. War, Hunger and Displacement, The Origins of Humanitarian Emergencies, Vol.1: Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Natsios, Andrew S. 1997. U.S. Foreign Policy and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Humanitarian Relief in Complex Emergencies. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Power, Samantha. 2002. “Raising the Costs of Genocide.” Dissent (Spring 2002): 85–95.Google Scholar
  63. Price, Richard. 1998. “Reversing the Gun Sights. Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines.” International Organization 52 (3): 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ramsbotham, Oliver and Tom Woodhouse. 1996. Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict. A Reconceptualization. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  65. Reed, Laura W. and Carl Kaysen. 1993. Emerging Norms of Justified Intervention: A Collection of Essays from a Project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences / Committee on International Security Studies.Google Scholar
  66. Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Romano, Cesare P. R., André Nollkaemper, and Jann K. Kleffner, eds. 2004. Internationalized Criminal Courts. Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sandholtz, Wayne. 2002. “Humanitarian Intervention: Global Enforcement of Human Rights?” In Globalization and Human Rights, ed. Alison Brysk. Berkley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schorlemer, Sabine von. 2004. “Verrechtlichung contra Entrechtlichung: Die internationalen Sicherheitsbeziehungen.” In Verrechtlichung - Baustein für Global Governance?, ed. Bernhard Zangl and Michael Zürn. Bonn.Google Scholar
  70. Schweller, Randall. 1996. “Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” Security Studies 5(3): 90–121.Google Scholar
  71. Smillie, Ian and Larry Minear. 2004. The Charity of Nations. Humanitarian Action in a Calculating World. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  72. Staibano, Carina. 2005. “Trends in UN Sanctions.” In International Sanctions. Between Words and Wars in the Global System, ed. Peter Wallensteen and Carina Staibano. New York, NY: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  73. Väyrynen, Raimo. 2000. “Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: Concepts and Issues.” In War, Hunger, and Displacement. The Origins of Humanitarian Emergencies, ed. E. W. Nafziger, Frances Stewart, and Raimo Väyrynen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wallensteen, Peter. 2002. Understanding Conflict Resolution. War, Peace and the Global System. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  75. Wallensteen, Peter and Börje Johansson. 2004. “Security Council Decisions in Perspective.” In The UN Security Council. From the Cold War to the 21st Century, ed. David M. Malone. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  76. Wallensteen, Peter and Staibano Carina. eds. 2005. International Sanctions. Between Words and Wars in the Global System. London/New York, NY: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  77. Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell U. P.Google Scholar
  78. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: MacGraw- Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Weiss, Thomas G. 2005. Military Civilian Interactions. Humanitarian Crises And The Responsibility To Project. Oxford et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  80. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000. Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Zangl, Bernhard and Michael Zürn. 2003. Frieden und Krieg. Sicherheit in der nationalen und post-nationalen Konstellation. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations