See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/339900928

Human Rights and Humanitarian Interventions in the International

Arena

Chapter · March 2020

DOI: 10.4135/9781529714333.n89

CITATION READS

1 2,077

1 author:

Salvador Santino Jr Regilme

Leiden University
59 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Rights View project

Multidisciplinary Research: Global Human Rights at Risk? Challenges, Prospects, and Reforms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salvador Santino Jr Regilme on 13 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Please cite as:
Regilme, Salvador Santino Fulo Jr. (2020). Human Rights and Humanitarian
Interventions in the International Arena. In Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, Bertrand Badie &
Leonardo Morlino. (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Political Science. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1462-1479.

Human Rights and Humanitarian

Interventions in the International
Arena
S a l v a d o r S a n t i n o F u l o R e g i l m e Jr

IntroductIon extent of bypassing UN Security Council

(UNSC) approval. In general, intervention
The proliferation of human rights discourses advocates posit that militaristic means are
in contemporary global politics is remarkable. necessary in order to prevent a murderous
The ongoing, multi-sided civil war in Syria is regime, such as the one in Syria, from killing
probably the largest humanitarian man-made further civilians – an argument that intends to
disaster since the end of the Second World uphold the right to life of innocent civilians.
War. Close to half-a-million people died Oppositionists, meanwhile, argue that human-
because of the violence therein, while at least itarian interventions often strategically use
one million refugees have fled the country in rights discourses not primarily to protect inno-
search of a better life elsewhere. The rights of cent civilians but to promote the geostrategic
refugees and civilian victims of the conflict military and economic interests of the interve-
figured quite prominently in debates on nors. The case of Syria represents a key
whether the US government, among other puzzle in contemporary world politics: the
countries in the Global North, should militar- normative principles, political foundations,
ily intervene in Syria in order to prevent fur- and consequences of the global human rights
ther escalation of violence. Responding to the regime and humanitarian interventions.
Syrian crisis in its early phase, in 2012 and Considering that context, this chapter
2013, key officials in the administration of the provides an analytic overview of one of the
then US President, Barack Obama (including most important developments in contem-
Anne-Marie Slaughter, a notable international porary world politics: international human
relations scholar and the then Director of rights norms and humanitarian interventions.
Policy Planning at the State Department), What constitutes international human rights
advocated for US military intervention to the norms? What constitutes a humanitarian

1462
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1463

intervention? How are human rights related of reasons, which include its apparent sim-
to humanitarian interventions? plicity of categorizing rights in terms of
The notion of international human rights the types of privileges that can be extracted
refers to various legally and politically sanc- from such legal entitlements. Yet, the histo-
tioned entitlements that are conceived to be rian Steve Jensen (2017) contests the ‘Three
inherent to all human individuals, regardless Generations of Rights’ perspective because
of their national origins, residential status, of several compelling arguments. The first
gender, linguistic heritage, or any other forms reason pertains to its unclear historical perio-
of identity affiliations, external characteris- dization of the emergence of each category.
tics, and personal background. The United In particular, there is no convincing historical
Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for basis for Vasak’s post-1945 framing, which
Human Rights posits that such rights can be links the 1948 Universal Declaration of
found in numerous forms such as international Human Rights with the two other Covenants,
treaties, customary public and private inter- from 1966. Also, Vasak’s framing does not
national law, national constitutions, regional accurately reflect a linear evolution of human
declarations, and many other sources of inter- rights contestations, as Vasak later revised
national law. his argument by tracing three generations to
Accordingly, human rights have several the French Revolution’s notions of liberty,
quintessential features. First, international equality, and fraternity. As Jensen (2017)
human rights are universal to the extent that accurately notes, socio-economic rights are
every individual possesses them – although, mutually constitutive with civil and political
there is some variation on which specific rights rights, as demonstrated by the history of the
are legally protected, depending on which French Revolution and consequent human
human rights treaties the relevant state has rights struggles. Hence, human rights history
fully ratified. Second, human rights are inal- should be conceived as complex and conten-
ienable to the extent that they are not supposed tious politics, with various demands from a
to be discredited or suspended arbitrarily, variety of actors across historical time and
except when due process and legally sanc- political space – rather than a neat line of
tioned rules have been followed. The notions progressive political demands, as suggested
of equality and non-discrimination constitute by the ‘Three Generations of Rights’ theory.
key principles of international human rights, The substantive content and justifications for
whereby no human being should be hindered international human rights vary depend- ing
from enjoying their rights on the basis of group on the analytic perspective that one might
affiliation and other backgrounds. In interna- use. In the field of moral theory, human rights
tional law, states take the ultimate responsibil- function as natural entitlements of all indi-
ity in ensuring that individual human rights viduals by the virtue of one’s humanity. The
are fully protected within its borders, and, by right to be free from physical harassment and
implication, individual human beings are also torture, accordingly, is a natural right that
responsible for respecting the rights of their all human individuals possess, regardless
fellow individuals. of their political, legal, and social status. In
The common public understanding about other words, human rights precede any form
human rights suggests that such norms evolve of state-based socio-legal infrastructure or
even international legal system. The political
over three historical generations of rights: theory view maintains that human rights are
(1) civil and political; (2) social and economic; not natural entitlements, but rather that rights
and (3) group and collective rights. Originally function as discursive concepts deployed in
proposed by Czech jurist Karel Vasak in 1979, transnational politics in ways that represent
the ‘Three Generations of Rights’ theory has contentious struggles among various actors
gained traction in global politics for a variety

1463
1464 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

over global public goods. States, for instance, rights abuses (Welsh, 2004: 3). The histori-
instrumentalize human rights values in order ans Brendan Simms and D.J.B. Trim (2011:
to justify various forms of interventions over 4–5) provide a simple yet fairly useful list of
other states. More recently in international the key elements that constitute a humanitar-
politics, the demand for human rights protec- ian intervention. First, its main purpose is
tion sometimes serves as justificatory premises to shape events and actions within another
for violating the notion of state sovereignty, state, a group of states, or another territory.
as clearly demonstrated in humanitarian- Second, such a form of intervention primar-
intervention debates. Specifically, such cases ily aims to influence or shape the behavior of
can also be seen when Western states justify the government of the target state(s). Thus,
foreign aid programs in recipient states in the humanitarian interventions are generally
Global South, or when the Bush administra- coercive, although each case of intervention
tion justified its militaristic approach to the may involve various methods of coercion
US-led global war on terror as a means to pro- that range from purely diplomatic means to
mote democracy and human rights in suppos- threats and then actual use of force and vio-
edly conflict-ridden states (Regilme, 2018a, lence. Finally, the core aim of humanitarian
2018b). To be sure, it is not only states that interventions is to prevent or stop the emer-
appropriate human rights for their own geo- gence and recurrence of high levels of mor-
strategic and violent goals; as Nicola Perugini tality, mass violence, severe human rights
and Neve Gordon (2015) maintain, Israeli set- violations, and other forms of prevalent suf-
tler NGOs apparently instrumentalized human fering as perceived to be caused by the action
rights in order to disenfranchise Palestinians, or lack of action of the ruling authorities in
while military think tanks invoke rights dis- the target state(s) or region.
courses to justify political violence. Lastly, In international relations literature, human-
from a legal positivist perspective of inter- itarian intervention often only constitutes
national law, the legitimacy of human rights militaristic and coercive means (Newman,
norms comes from constituent elements of
2009: 3–4; Welsh, 2004: 3), but one must
international law to which states have com-
note that interventions often include an aggre-
mitted. For example, the right of a person to
gate variety of methods. As Simms and Trim
be free from torture and any form of cruel
(2011: 6–7) maintain, humanitarian interven-
and degrading treatment is a well-established
tion demonstrates an interesting relationship
human rights norm because of the 1985 United
between coercion and diplomacy as methods
Nations Convention against Torture, an impor-
of influence. Accordingly, diplomatic means
tant international human rights treaty with 164
usually precede the implementation of milita-
state parties as of June 2018.
ristic and coercive means. When an extremely
What exactly counts as a humanitarian
repressive state halts its violent actions, it is
intervention? While human rights often refer
likely the case that an intervening state had
to the broad set of principles that seek to pro-
threatened the prospect of using military force
tect the welfare of individual human beings,
beforehand. In some cases, an intervening
humanitarian interventions pertain to a par-
state may have deployed armed forces that did
ticular set of actions that frequently invoke
not result in an escalation of hostilities. For
human rights discourses in order to inter-
those reasons, it is more conceptually accu-
vene in the internal affairs of another state.
rate to consider a wide range of diplomatic
Essentially, humanitarian interventions refer
and coercive methods as constitutive forms
to a set of coercive and non-coercive actions
of humanitarian intervention, instead of limit-
that aim to interfere in the domestic affairs
ing the analysis to a militaristic approach as
of a state, with the core purpose of averting
Jennifer Welsh and others (2004) did in an
or minimizing severe and pervasive human
influential volume on the topic.

1464
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1465

Having set out what is being conceptualized suffering committed by imperial pow-
as human rights and humanitarian interven- ers against unarmed individuals during the
tions, this chapter proceeds with the follow- Second World War. Meanwhile, the historian
ing organizational logic. First, the chapter Elizabeth Borgwardt (2007) maintains that
provides an analytic outline of the historical the US presidential administration of Franklin
origins of international human rights norms Roosevelt played a pivotal role in spearhead-
and human rights interventions. Second, the ing the human rights revolution that under-
chapter discusses the various scholarly views pins the current world order. Particularly,
pertaining to the most critical factors that Roosevelt’s role in the 1941 Atlantic Charter
shape the patterns of human rights com- and the ‘Four Freedoms’ functioned as path-
pliance and violations. Third, the chapter breaking international pronouncements that
explores the underlying legal principles and powerfully emphasized the rights and welfare
ethical foundations of the norms of humani- of people rather than the interests of nation-
tarian intervention and the contending views states (Jensen, 2016: 23). Based on the under-
in support of and in opposition to such a lying principles of the Atlantic Charter, the
norm. The penultimate section of the chapter United Nations (UN) Charter and Statute of
then presents some of the most quintessential the International Court of Justice (1945: 1)
issues pertaining to the global human rights reaffirmed the importance of ‘fundamental
regime, with a particular focus on the rise of human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
illiberal and authoritarian regimes, sharply human person, in the equal rights of men and
increasing material inequality, and the rights women and of nations large and small’. Yet,
to privacy in the age of continued digitaliza- small states and civil society organizations
tion. This chapter concludes by raising some should be emphasized as having been the most
important questions in regard to the future of outspoken and pioneering advocates of human
social-science-based scholarship on human rights at a time when the post-1945 world
rights and humanitarian interventions. order was at its earlier phase of emergence.
In fact, around 42 US and international civil
society organizations participated in the 1945
San Francisco convention, which eventually
HIstorIcal orIgIns of tHe created the UN and the joint and persistent
global Human rIgHts and lobbying initiatives that eventually facili-
HumanItarIan InterventIons tated the Human Rights Commission (Waltz,
2002: 441).
Since the end of the Second World War, inter- More recently, Steve Jensen (2016) main-
national human rights norms have gained tained that the international human rights
traction not only in the political discourses of revolution began in the 1960s to the 1970s,
state leaders and civil society activists but when international activists and states started
also, perhaps more importantly, in the codi- to imbibe human rights in their discourses.
fied documents of international law. How did Notably, Jensen compellingly shows that
human rights emerge as a well-entrenched the mainstream history of human rights has
principle in international law? inaccurately privileged Western agency, and
The history of the contemporary inter- he instead demonstrates that a core group
national human rights regime can be traced of non-Western states (Liberia, Philippines,
from various perspectives. For instance, the Jamaica, and Ghana) pushed for human rights
political theorist Jean Cohen (2008: 579–80) in international diplomacy in the 1960s in
contends that the initial push to reinvigor- the context of decolonization. Although the
ate human rights in the contemporary period UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of
emerged in the wake of the severe human Human Rights emerged with the leadership

1465
1466 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

of the West, the universal nature of these and the right to education, among others.
documents is highly contested. As Jensen Since the introduction of these documents,
argues (2016: 3), ‘in the hierarchical world human rights principles have continued to be
of empire, human rights had only a limited embedded in various conventions at various
opportunity to shape global politics’, pri- levels of constitutional order, ranging from the
marily because the notion of universality domestic, regional, and international dimen-
is inherently antithetical to such an inter- sions (Hopgood, 2014: 67). For instance, there
national system. After the decolonization are conventions on discrimination against
of many states in the Global South, a more women (1981), torture and degrading punish-
universalist conception of human rights ment (1984), children’s rights (1989), rights of
gained traction as discourses and nego- migrant workers and their families (1990), the
tiations occurred in an international system protection of all persons from enforced disap-
where formal empires no longer existed. For pearances (2006), and disability rights (2006).
example, diplomats from states of the Global At the regional level, several important docu-
South pushed for a more inclusive concep- ments emerged as part of a broader commit-
tion of human rights with a focus on racial ment to human rights: the African Charter on
equality and religious freedom. Arguably, the Human and Peoples’ Rights (1986); American
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Convention on Human Rights (1978); Charter
Racial Discrimination emerged as the first of the Fundamental Rights of the European
document of international law that explicitly Union (2000); Arab Charter on Human Rights
embraces and extensively addresses the com- (2004); and the Association of Southeast Asian
mitted protection of the dignity of all human Nations (ASEAN) Human Rights Declaration
persons regardless of racial background. (2012). These documents, which were formed
In contemporary public international law, at the regional level, are significant amidst
various human rights principles are fully efforts of some Global South politicians to
entrenched in the International Bill of Human undermine civil and political rights as a strat-
Rights, which is constituted by three landmark egy to build social cohesion and long-term eco-
documents: (1) UN Declaration of Human nomic development. For instance, the ASEAN
Rights (UDHR) (1948); (2) the International Human Rights Declaration concretely under-
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mines the arguments of Singapore’s Lee Kuan
(ICCPR) (1966); and (3) the International Yew and Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammad,
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural who remained active during the East Asian
Rights (ICESCR) (1966). The UDHR consti- values debate in the 1990s as they legitimized
tutes 30 provisions that explicitly maintain an the repression of peaceful political dissidence
individual’s rights, with the emphasis on the by referring to its promised long-term eco-
right to life and the prohibition of slavery, nomic benefits.
among other human rights specifications. It Amidst the proliferation of human rights
is also the first step towards the formation of instruments, it is still not clear whether inter-
the International Bill of Human Rights. The national human rights law effectively deters
ICCPR, meanwhile, highlights those rights state abuses, although Beth Simmons (2009)
that enable individuals to fully participate in maintains that the state’s treaty commitments
the political community, including the freedom are more likely to facilitate the emergence
of speech, assembly, right to due process and of a political environment that is compli-
fair trial, and the right to vote. The ICESCR ant with human rights. Simmons (2009),
specifies those rights that protect the dignity however, admits that her study only shows
of the person as one participates in the various the correlation of treaty commitments with
social, cultural, and economic systems; such improved human rights practices, and she
rights include labor rights, healthcare rights, acknowledges that human rights violations

1466
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1467

often emerge from a complex set of structural supports the view of Simms and Trim (2011:
domestic political and economic conditions. 10–1) in their edited volume, in which they
Similarly, another study confirms that these oppose the argument of Gary Bass’ pioneering
international human rights instruments often work on this topic by referring to the 1820s’
function as ‘window dressing’ for signatory Greek Revolt against the Ottoman Empire – the
states, although transnational activists invoke first 19th-century European intervention that
such rights to mobilize action against abusive can be rightfully acknowledged as an interven-
regimes (Tsutsui and Hafner-Burton, 2005). tion deliberately legitimated by humanitarian
Regardless of its effect on actual human rights reasoning.
outcomes, the proliferation of human rights In contrast, although humanitarian interven-
instruments in international law constitutes tions existed even before the 1990s, the post-
a fundamental challenge to the norm of state Cold War forms of interference notably differ
sovereignty. on two specific features (Ayoob, 2002: 83).
Meanwhile, humanitarian interventions pro- The first feature pertains to its invoked pur-
pose three constitutive elements: (1) interven- poses. Whereas pre-Cold War interventions
tionist politics that violate the state-sovereignty were unashamedly justified as being political
norm; (2) ethical considerations on the legiti- and geostrategic in nature, interventions in the
mate conditions for militaristic or coercive 1990s predominantly constituted of universal-
interventions, particularly in the context of just- istic and humanitarian reasons. The second
war debates; and (3) human rights of those who feature refers to the political actors that deploy
are supposed to benefit from such an interven- the interventions. Various post-Cold War inter-
tion. Although the derivative yet fairly similar ventions usually require a coalition of states
concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ is very acting on behalf of the international commu-
new, the concept and practice of humanitar- nity instead of acting on their own interests.
ian interventions enjoy a long history (Klose, The post-Cold War era has witnessed the
2015; Simms and Trim, 2011). The anthro- increase in the invocation of Chapter VII of
pologist Didier Fassin (2012) contextualizes the United Nations Charter, whereby 93%
militaristic and non-militaristic interventions of all Chapter VII resolutions passed by the
in the name of ‘humanity’ as being part of the UNSC during the period 1946 to 2002 were
emergence of what he calls the ‘humanitarian approved after the early 1990s (Walling,
reason’ during the late 20th and 21st centu- 2015: 392). This finding demonstrates that
ries. This mode of normative reasoning points the post-Cold War global security environ-
us to the mutually shared feelings of empathy ment entailed a lot more intra-state problems
for the suffering of other individuals, thereby with transformative regional-security effects.
invoking the predisposition to alleviate suffer- These domestic state-security problems con-
ing, often through extraordinary means, such stitute one of the key challenges for the UNSC,
as coercive and militaristic interventionist which needs to address the conflict between
policies – a mode of governance that now per- the norm of state sovereignty through non-
vasively regulates and justifies the inevitable interference versus human rights protection
presence of vulnerable individuals. Disputing through humanitarian intervention.
the conventional belief that humanitarian inter-
ventions only emerged at the end of the Cold
War, the historian Davide Rodogno (2011)
uncovers the European origins of such a con- scHolarly vIews: factors tHat
cept by examining the British and French inter- sHape Human rIgHts outcome
ventions in the Ottoman Empire during the
19th century. This particular historical mark- The current political science debate on the
ing as the genesis of humanitarian intervention factors and conditions that shape human rights

1467
1468 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

outcomes can be broadly divided into two and causal mechanisms that abusive states
notable clusters: international relations and undergo as they eventually internalize and
comparative politics. The key difference practice human rights norms. Perhaps the
between these two clusters lies on their level most recent and notable study on the rise of
of analysis, where explanatory variables can human rights norms is Kathryn Sikkink’s The
be extrapolated to understand a particular Justice Cascade (2011), which pertains to the
transformative norm in international politics
human rights outcome. Whereas comparative
that holds individual government officials,
politics highlights the role of intra-national
state agents, and others as criminally account-
and domestic variables, international rela-
able for human rights abuses. Analyzing a
tions emphasizes the causal power of trans-
wide variety of qualitative and quantitative
national factors.
evidence through the lens of agency-oriented
In the field of international relations, there constructivism, Sikkink (2011) maintain that
are several influential studies that have sub- the emergence and effectiveness of a human
stantially influenced our scholarly under- rights norm can be attributed to the persistent
standing of the factors that shape human rights advocacy work of states and transnational
outcomes. Perhaps the most pioneering body
nongovernmental organizations that sought
of scholarly works in that regard emerged to institutionalize criminal accountability for
in the 1990s, after the Cold War era, when human rights abuses. More recently, Salvador
social-constructivist analytic approaches and
Santino Regilme (2015, 2018a, 2018b) main-
qualitative methods were predominantly used
tains that foreign aid and the converging inter-
in order to examine the role of human rights ests and discourses of donor and recipient
norms in actual politics and public policy. governments shape the ways through which
One of these works is Activists Beyond
Borders (Keck and Sikkink, 1998), which those resources could be primarily used for
proposes the ‘boomerang pattern’ of transna- either the violent repression of all forms of
tional activist coalition-building strategy. In dissidence or democracy and human rights
promotion. For instance, the Thai government,
such a strategy, domestic civil society organi-
under the leadership of Prime Minister Thaksin
zations form alliances with their transna- Shinawatra (2001–06), actively cooperated
tional counterparts in order to jointly press an
with the Bush administration in the US-led
abusive government towards a more human- war on terror, consequently repressed many
rights-compliant policy approach. For example, forms of peaceful dissidence, and killed civil-
Keck and Sikkink (1998) refer to several case
ians by actively reframing the illegal-drugs
studies of coalition-building, including the
problem and political opposition members as
policy area of environmental protection, as terror threats.
shown by the transnational partnerships of
Another influential perspective, mean-
civil society organizations (e.g. Greenpeace
while, on human rights compliance pertains
and the World Wildlife Fund) to undermine
to the realist perspective, which highlights the
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and
role of enduring national interests as the key
the Sarawak region in Malaysia. This transna-
predictor for states’ behavior. Accordingly,
tional network could further amplify pressure
the effects of human rights instruments (e.g.
put upon abusive states by calling in support
international law, regional human rights
from various stakeholders at the global level.
mechanisms, etc.) are at best epiphenom-
Part of this constructivist agenda on human
enal, and states ratify those instruments (and
rights research is Thomas Risse and col-
comply with human rights norms) when it is
leagues’ The Power of Human Rights (1999),
which proposes the five-stage spiral model of in their best national interest to effectively
human rights compliance. Such a model con- respond to the organized demands articulated
stitutes the various socialization processes by international activists and stakeholders.

1468
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1469

The realist view on human rights attempts institutions reinforce the already preexisting
to refute social constructivism’s claim that national preferences of member states. Beth
human rights norms exert causal power on the Simmons (2012), meanwhile, underscores the
behavior of political actors as well as inter- importance of various non-state human rights
state diplomacy. Stephen Krasner (2010) stakeholders in reinforcing the effectiveness of
argues that the core interests of the most eco- international human rights law. Another study
nomically and military powerful countries of undermines the effectiveness of transnational
the international system are reflected in the human rights movements, while highlighting
way human-rights-oriented issues are talked instead the role of preferential trade regula-
about across historical time. In that way, tions that include human rights conditionali-
powerful states often instrumentalize human ties – a policy strategy that does not only seek
rights discourses in order to justify interven- to bolster the political interests of its advocates
tionist and perhaps coercive foreign policies but also to advance a wide variety of national
towards less powerful states (Downs et al., interests (Hafner-Burton, 2009).
1996; Mearsheimer, 1994, 1995). In the field of comparative politics, mean-
Furthermore, the liberal-institutionalist while, scholars often focus on intranational
human rights literature acknowledges the and statist variables to account for the varia-
powerful role of national interests as a key tion in human rights compliance across time
influence but acknowledges that, under certain within a given country. This comparativist
conditions, states may still comply with human literature can be roughly divided into two
rights norms as promoted by global govern- strands (Hafner-Burton, 2014: 274–6). The
ance institutions and the international legal first strand refers to the scholarly studies that
system. The liberal-institutionalist perspective refer to violent armed conflicts as a key fac-
dismisses realism’s core assumption that world tor, as such kinds of conflict generate persis-
politics is ultimately about the enduring strug- tent cycles of human rights violations that,
gle for power among competing states; instead, once they gain traction, are quite hard to stop.
liberal institutionalism highlights the possibil- Hence, low-intensity conflicts provoke states
ity of cooperation among states through the to respond with the extensive deployment
maximization of gains through international of the resources of its coercive apparatus,
institutions. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye thereby increasing the propensity for political
(1977) proposed the theory of complex inter- terror and killing of civilians. For example,
dependence, which highlights the decreasing the armed Islamic-nationalist rebellion in
use of military power as a tool of diplomacy the southern Philippines has been a persist-
amidst the increasing use of various forms ing conflict in ways that make it difficult for
of cooperative interdependencies among the Philippine state to balance state security
nations. Amidst the era of globalization, states with demands to respect the human rights
maximize their national interests through non- claims of unarmed civilians (Regilme, 2016:
violent forms of cooperation with other states. 236–8). This difficulty in balancing these two
In other words, cooperation through policy goals became especially more serious
institutions, including international human after the Philippines joined the US-led war
rights law, demonstrates the increasing con- on terror after the 9/11 attacks. Thus, coun-
vergence of aggregated preferences and inter- tries that face its own enduring civil wars
ests of involved states. For instance, using the and violent conflicts within some parts of its
case study of European institutions, Andrew territory are more likely to witness atrocities
Moravcsik (1995) argues that the success of than those that have been historically peace-
such institutions is predicated upon nations ful (Goldhagen, 1996; Poe and Tate, 1994).
that already guarantee basic human rights. In In many cases, women and ethnic minorities
other words, these supranational human rights are often the most vulnerable targets of state

1469
1470 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

terror, caught up in the conflict against armed system that emerged after the Second World
rebel groups (Cohen and Green, 2012). War paved the way for the supposed entrench-
The second strand of this literature refers ment of the norm of state sovereignty, but it
to the type and form of governance system as was later overruled through a number of
the key predictors for the likelihood of human landmark efforts. In fact, as the Article 2,
rights abuses. Accordingly, democratic states Section 7 of the UN Charter (1945) clearly
are more likely to promote and comply with states: ‘Nothing contained in the present
human rights norms than their non-democratic Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
counterparts are, primarily because such gov- intervene in matters which are essential
ernance systems empower citizens in shap- within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’.
ing the states’ policy agenda, which, in turn, Yet, three years after the UN Charter was
makes it less likely for the government to ratified, the Genocide Convention (1948),
deploy political terror upon civilians compared with 149 ratifying and acceding state parties
to authoritarian states. Yet, not all democracies as of December 2017, overrode the state-
are the same; many non-consolidated democ- sovereignty norm by effectively legitimizing
racies still face the persistent occurrence of the option for any of its contracting parties to
election-related violence, thereby contributing act within the UN system ‘for the prevention
to the state’s inability to fully implement its and suppression of acts of genocide’.
human rights commitments. Quite similarly, In 2001, three months after the 9/11 terror
Bertrand Badie (2000) emphasizes the role attacks in the United States, the Canadian
of predatory-state formation after the colonial Government formed the International
period in Africa, particularly when rent-seeking Commission on Intervention and State
postcolonial elites have persistently used the Sovereignty (ICISS) in reaction to UN
state apparatus in attracting foreign invest- Secretary General Kofi Annan’s international
ments and aid rather than generating wealth community, to reflect upon the conditions of
from within the country. In that way, these breaking state sovereignty for humanitarian
postcolonial elites have been more preoccu- reasons. The ICISS formulated the doctrine of
pied in generating their own private wealth ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P), which pos-
rather than upholding broader public interests its that an individual state has both the right
through the use of political violence. to primarily shape its domestic affairs and the
This section has summarized some of obligation to promote the welfare of people
the most recent and notable social scientific within its borders – and, in cases where the
scholarly findings pertaining to the condi- state fails to fulfill such an obligation, the inter-
tions that shape human rights outcomes. The national community should step in (ICISS,
next part of this chapter discusses some of 2001; United Nations, 2013). Hence, the R2P
the key contending views that support and doctrine maintains that any given state has the
dispute the legitimacy and effectiveness of original but non-exclusive obligation to pro-
humanitarian interventions. mote the security and welfare of its inhabitants
within its territory. It is non-exclusive because
the broader global community should fulfil
that role in the case of the concerned state’s
HumanItarIan InterventIons: failure to do so (Acharya, 2002: 273–4). Thus,
HIstory, legItImacy, and for the ICISS, the principles of sovereignty and
effectIveness humanitarian intervention should be treated as
complementary instead of being antithetical
Is humanitarian intervention, in principle, to each other (MacFarlane et al., 2004: 978).
legitimate? If so, then how and under what More precisely, a state’s claim for sovereignty
condition is it legitimate? The international is conditional, based upon observance of basic
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1471

standards of human rights and effectiveness in defined across disciplines, particularly in

upholding its citizens’ welfare. Although the international law, philosophy, and political
norms of non-intervention and sovereignty are science (Teson and Van der Vossen, 2017: 8).
established principles, Michael Doyle (2015) In general, scholars of international law
maintains they can be abrogated in cases of oppose humanitarian intervention, except in
enduring civil wars, prevention of massacres, cases that are fully authorized by the UNSC,
and possibly, for post-war peace building philosophers generally favor it under certain
initiatives. conditions, as exemplified in the just-war
Moreover, some scholars studying interna- literature, and political scientists are quite
tional norms contend that the rise of global divided on the issue.
human rights norms, especially in the 1990s A general theme that divides advocates
after the Cold War, have facilitated the and oppositionists of humanitarian interven-
increasing legitimization of R2P (Walling, tion refers to the clash between state sover-
2015: 387). Yet, building the case that the tar- eignty and human rights (Bellamy, 2010).
get state has been fully engaged in extensive Supporting interventions, solidarists claim
human rights violations of its own people is an that the contemporary international society
important task for R2P advocates. Although has nurtured a common set of beliefs per-
such interventions are usually framed as an taining to the key elements that characterize
acceptable enforcement mechanism of inter- a humanitarian disaster. For that reason, this
national human rights law, critics claim that common understanding develops over time,
interveners, in practice, may further deterio- and states do not possess unconditional claim
rate the human rights situation in target states to sovereignty, considering that its authority
through sanctions, invasions, and even the can be abrogated in grave humanitarian emer-
imposition of authoritarian forms of govern- gencies that require some forms of external
ance (Cohen, 2008: 580). military intervention. Failure to intervene in
In practice, the UNSC serves as the focal such cases is not only likely to detrimentally
multilateral institution responsible for the undermine the welfare of civilians in the con-
authorization and coordination of humanitar- cerned states, but a grave humanitarian disas-
ian interventions, with the explicit aim of aid- ter is also likely to have dangerous spillover
ing a multilateral coalition that would protect effects in regional security.
civilians caught in an armed conflict within a Pluralists dispute the solidarists’ founda-
target state. It was in April 2006 that the UNSC tional claim that the international community
officially referred to the R2P doctrine when it has developed a widely accepted common
passed resolution 1674, which reaffirms the understanding of what constitutes a humani-
international community’s collective responsi- tarian disaster. Instead, pluralists highlight
bility to uphold the rights of civilians in cases the considerable diversity of ethical stand-
of armed conflicts. Following that landmark ards across societies worldwide, and a pur-
resolution, the UNSC passed on succeeding ported common understanding within the
resolutions that embody the R2P response international society does not exist. The R2P
in regard to several humanitarian problems, doctrine, which often functions as the foun-
including Libya (2011), Côte d’Ivoire (2011), dational justification for militaristic humani-
Yemen (2011), South Sudan (2011) and Syria tarian intervention, problematically implies
(2012) (United Nations, 2013). the powerful states’ ill-conceived privileged
The ethical claims and justifications that position to arbitrarily position themselves
underpin militaristic forms of humanitar- as ‘saviors’ of civilian victims often found
ian intervention remain highly contentious. less powerful states. Particularly, that doc-
Arguments in support of or in opposition to trine makes a hierarchical distinction within
humanitarian intervention can be roughly the international system between supposedly
1472 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

independent sovereign states ‘whose citizens intervention can only be determined after it
have political rights, and de facto trusteeship has been launched and when its consequences
territories whose populations are seen as wards to the target state and the civilian population
in need of external protection’ (Mamdani, have been fully assessed. The contrarian view,
however, asserts that the moral permissibility
2010: 53). In other words, humanitarian inter-
can only be rightfully assessed before launch-
ventions reinforce the problematic notion ing an intervention, and such an assessment
of ‘the white man’s burden’ in supposedly should constitute an evidence-based forecast of
improving the welfare of non-white indi- its consequences. Second, another benchmark
viduals (MacFarlane et al., 2004; Mutua, includes the intention or the just cause for
2002). More often than not, state sovereignty launching a humanitarian intervention. What
remains the only compelling justification of is the predominant motivation for the inter-
weak states (and individuals residing therein) vening state/s? How and under which condi-
against unjust interventions from more pow- tions do those states ensure that humanitarian
erful states, and when exceptions to that norm goals remain dominant in their intervention
of sovereignty are granted, the likelihood of strategy? Finally, the scope of intervention
the instrumentalization of interventions for needs to be seriously considered as well.
geostrategic and economic gains increases. Specifically, this key issue refers to the param-
Even in cases when UNSC authorization is eters and the exact implementation strategy
granted, the UNSC’s decision does not neces- of a given humanitarian intervention. Which
sarily reflect the broad approval of the major- actors and institutions will be involved in the
ity of the states worldwide. Powerful states intervention? Under which conditions will the
still control the UNSC, and the norm of sov- intervention be implemented? In cases that
ereignty could be the foundational norm that interventions further aggravate the situation of
small states use to deter abusive and power- civilians in the target state, what are the opera-
ful states from using humanitarian reasons in tional protocols of interveners?
intervening for the sole purpose of enhancing This section has provided a brief yet com-
geostrategic or economic interests. As such, prehensive overview of humanitarian inter-
David Chandler (2001: 24) criticizes post- vention’s historical background, legitimating
Cold War interpretations of humanitarian justifications, and the conditions in which
principles, for they are now being deployed it could be morally permissible. Moreover,
to legitimize military sanctions and bombings this section has also highlighted some of the
that often undermine the welfare of the very practical and political arguments that oppose
people they supposed to protect. militaristic interference in the name of sup-
Regardless of one’s position in this debate, posedly humanitarian goals. Moving forward,
the question on how to assess the moral the next section provides an overview of some
plausibility of humanitarian interventions of the key challenges of the contemporary
remains important amidst an ongoing pub- global human rights regime.
lic interest among policy elites in the global
North. There are three key considerations:
timing, intention, and scope of interven-
tions (Teson and Van der Vossen, 2017). In contemporary cHallenges
terms of timing, a key question for schol- to tHe global Human rIgHts
ars and policy-makers is to determine when
regIme
exactly is the best time to determine the
permissibility of a just war in the context
of humanitarian interventions. Specifically, The end of the Cold War paved the way for
the consequentialist view maintains that the the optimistic view that democracy and
legitimacy of any militaristic humanitarian human rights could be the ‘end of history’;
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1473

the start of the 21st century, however, wit- On the one hand, the optimistic view defends
nessed a backsliding from what seems to the global human rights movement from its
be political gains that were accumulated in the critics, particularly by highlighting the move-
previous decade (Regilme 2019a). There are ment’s legitimacy and effectiveness. More
two key phases in global politics that ushered recently, Kathryn Sikkink (2017), a leading
in this contemporary crisis in human rights. political scientist working on human rights,
The first constitutive element of this crisis contends that, contrary to what critics say, the
refers to the global military insecurity that emergence of the international human rights
was fueled by the 9/11 terror attacks in the movement was facilitated by key political
United States. Consequently, the Bush actors from the Global North and South – a
administration and other US allies launched position that seeks to refute critics’ claims
the global ‘war on terror’, which facilitated that human rights are purely Western-centric.
the growth of the US security apparatus and Sikkink, further underscores the remarkable
militaristic approaches to armed conflicts effectiveness of the human rights regime by
worldwide. Apparently inspired by the politi- emphasizing the dramatic reduction of over-
cal thoughts of Leo Strauss and neoconserva- all violence and that there are fewer human
tism (Hirst, 2013), many proponents of the rights abuses now than before. In other
Iraq War under the Bush administration words, respect for human rights over the last
advocated for democracy promotion abroad four decades has substantially improved,
while actively espousing US national interest and the ratification of the UN Convention
through the use of violence and military force. Against Torture greatly contributed to such
Consequently, the idea that state security takes an improvement (Fariss, 2014). In addi-
precedence over individual physical-integrity tion, Sikkink explains that the perception of
rights gained some traction amidst the public worsening human rights violations globally
anxiety caused by non-state terror attacks. could be attributed to three factors: informa-
The second constitutive element concerns the tion paradox, cognitive bias, transforming
2007/2008 global financial crisis, which fur- standards of accountability. More concretely,
ther accelerated the neoliberalization of international human rights organizations
many advanced economies in the world, vis- have played a critical role in documenting
à-vis the continued weakening of the welfare- and widely informing the public about vari-
state tradition in the Global North (Regilme ous human rights abuses. This broad public
2019b). These outcomes in the political consciousness about such abuses facilitates
economy have radically undermined the the negative public perception that abuses
socio-economic rights of individuals amidst are more pervasive, as information about it
growing inequality within and between becomes more and more accessible. This
nations. Taken together, the crisis of human sense of accessibility to information creates a
rights – as is often concretely attributed to negativity bias, and it also pushes individuals
the rise of Trump and authoritarian and illib- to increase their standards for human rights
eral politicians elsewhere – remains one of the accountability. Hence, Sikkink cautions that
key challenges not only for advocates of those psychological biases should be blamed
emancipatory politics but also to scholars of for the erroneous view that the global human
international relations. rights regime has been incapable of making
In the field of human rights research, tremendous improvements in people’s lives.
scholars seem to be divided over the causes That sort of optimism as shared by Sikkink
of this crisis. Amidst the rise of Trump and is what many pessimistic observers have dis-
authoritarianism, taking stock of the gains puted. Specifically, several scholars posed
and losses of the global human rights regime some considerable criticisms against the
becomes an important scholarly undertaking. effectiveness and legitimacy of international
1474 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

human rights law, institutions, and move- Hafner-Burton (2014), who controversially
ments. For instance, Yale historian and legal argues that more international human rights
scholar Samuel Moyn (2018a, 2018b) offers legal instruments might not be necessary;
a more cautionary and pessimistic assess- rather, a group of advanced democracies –
ment of the international human rights what she calls ‘steward states’ – are impor-
regime. His main argument maintains that the tant in strategically addressing (or ‘triaging’)
current global human rights regime is insuf- the most important human rights problems
ficient, for it has unfortunately abandoned (instead of all types of problems). Of course,
the quintessential demand for material equal- that proposal came in before the rise of Trump
ity. Historically, various societal demands and the increasing influence of illiberal far-
for addressing material insecurity animated right political parties in Europe – a notable
the French Revolution and even the forma- political transformation that undermines the
tion of the human-security paradigm spear- viability of Hafner-Burton’s proposal. On
headed by the United Nations Development the other hand, Salvador Santino Regilme
Programme. This abandonment of material (2018c) suggests a three-pronged strategy:
equality was quickly replaced by the demand (1) emphasize an inclusivist and pluralist
for material sufficiency, which is the mini- conception of human dignity; (2) rewrite the
malist and compromised demand facilitated rules of global economic governance in ways
by neoliberalism. In other words, neolib- that uphold global justice; and (3) institu-
eralism engendered the current tragedy of tionalize mandatory political education on
increasing material inequality, while tragi- human rights and dignity. Advocating a more
cally replacing an egalitarian notion of human bottom-oriented and constructivist notion
rights with the minimalist version; that is, of human rights making, political theorist
the demand for mere material sufficiency. Benjamin Gregg (2016) proposes a cosmo-
Similarly, Stephen Hopgood (2013) upholds politan human rights state that does uphold
that the global human rights regime is on the a more process-oriented, deliberative, non-
verge of decay primarily for two reasons: the coercive process-making way of thinking
use of human rights by interventionist liberal about and practicing human rights.
states for their own geostrategic, material Notwithstanding one’s view on the cur-
interests, and the rise of non-Western powers rent state of the global human rights regime,
that could fundamentally challenge the US there are several global trends that are worth
hegemonic version of human rights (see also considering. First, the rise of Trump in the
Regilme and Parisot, 2017). The Chicago- United States and the illiberal populism in
based legal scholar Eric Posner (2014) adopts Europe constitute a much broader global
a legal rationalist-realist perspective in cast- trend, whereby democracy is apparently in
ing his less optimistic assessment of the retreat. According to the 2018 Freedom House
global human rights regime. Posner under- report, over the 12-year period since 2006, 113
scores the very high expectations placed on countries recorded a net decline in the qual-
international human rights treaties vis-à-vis ity of democracy and only 62 have registered
the serious difficulties of enforcing those a net improvement. For the 2018 report, with
often conflicting human rights values. 195 countries evaluated, only 45% (88 coun-
Despite the disagreements on whether the tries) of the total number were deemed ‘free’,
current human rights regime is generally with 30% (58 countries) partly free, and
effective in promoting the overall welfare of 25% (45 countries) not free. In other words,
individuals, several political scientists have the majority of the world’s population live
recently propounded some proposals for the in societies in which political freedoms are
regime’s eventual reform. The most notable constrained, if not totally repressed. Second,
among these perhaps comes from Emilie income inequality has grown in almost all
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1475

regions of the world in the past few decades, research on human rights. Such datasets can
albeit at varying speeds, while inequality in be useful in analyzing the degree of change
wealth distribution has worsened. According in a specific human rights aspect over time as
to Oxfam, the richest 1% of the globe enjoyed well as between and within countries. One of
82% of the new wealth created in 2017 and 0% the most prominent and pioneering datasets
went to the world’s poorest 50%, while close refers to the Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI)
to four billion people constitute the majority Human Rights Data Project (1999), which
of the population, who live in extreme levels annually rates the level of compliance of 202
of poverty. The increasing levels of material countries with 15 globally recognized human
inequality within countries could increase rights. Those rights in the CIRI dataset
the prospects for instability and eventual include freedom from enforced disappear-
collapse of contemporary political systems. ances, extrajudicial killings, torture, women’s
Meanwhile, the more pronounced material economic rights, and freedom of religion,
stratification between nations is more likely among many others. The measurement rat-
to precipitate legitimation problems for the ings range on a scale of zero to two, as zero
world order – if not a total revamp of the inter- refers to the very frequent violations of the
national system – should those inequalities left specific rights under inquiry, while two per-
unmanaged. Third, the increasingly pervasive tains to the absence of any reported abuse.
use of social-media networks undermines The CIRI dataset derives its ratings from the
the digital privacy rights of its users. Fueled coding system that is used to read the annual
by Edward Snowden’s surprising leak of top- reports from the US State Department and
secret documents, which revealed the mas- Amnesty International.
sive global surveillance programs that US spy Meanwhile, the Political Terror Scale (PTS)
agencies have been leading, the debate on dig- is another useful dataset that provides an
ital privacy rights continues, especially amidst annual measure of state-initiated political ter-
the prospects of a growing tide of authoritari- ror in a given country, based on a five-level
anism. Specifically, the increasing accessibil- ‘terror scale’. The measurements came from
ity to digital technologies makes it easier for a coding system based on the annual reports
abusive governments to use digital informa- from the US State Department, Amnesty
tion in ways that detrimentally manipulate International, and Human Rights Watch. A
public behavior or, worse, even kill or vio- score of one pertains to a situation wherein
lently repress any form of political dissidence. the state consistently observes the rule of law,
This section has underscored some of the political imprisonment and torture remain
current transnational problems that the global very rare, and political murders seem to be
human rights regime is facing. The next sec- very unusual. In the other extreme point of
tion briefly discusses some of the key infor- the scale, a score of five denotes that the state
mation sources and datasets that are helpful widely employs political terror to the entirety
for conducting social scientific research on of the population and violently kills and
human rights and humanitarian interventions. abuses political dissidents.
The third notable dataset refers to the
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) by
the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
datasets on Human rIgHts and and the Uppsala University’s Department
HumanItarIan InterventIons of Peace and Conflict Research. This data-
set contains comprehensive information
In empirical human rights research, several on armed conflicts and organized violence
datasets have emerged as useful sources of between and within nations, starting from the
evidence for comparative cross-national year 1946 and continuing up until the present.
1476 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

Various important human-rights-related data political science may also benefit from some
can be extrapolated from the UCDP, and they of the human-rights-related research findings
include statistical and geographically based produced by other fields, including psychol-
information on battle-related deaths inflicted ogy, anthropology, and communication stud-
by states, para-military forces, and armed ies, among others. Those fields focus at the
non-state rebel groups. micro-level, particularly the individual level,
In contrast to cross-national human rights and focusing on the micro-level could pro-
research, a high-quality and comprehensive vide some new insights into why particular
dataset on humanitarian interventions has individuals conform or deviate from specific
yet to fully emerge in contemporary political human rights norms. Moreover, political sci-
science. Yet, there are some new initiatives ence research on humanitarian interventions
worth considering; particularly, the German has yet to produce a reliable, cross-national
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) is dataset on humanitarian military interven-
currently developing a dataset on humanitar- tions. Next, although historians of human
ian military interventions since 1945. rights recently accomplished some path-
breaking research that shows the indispensa-
ble role of Global South actors in the
formation of the contemporary global human
conclusIon rights regime, political science has yet to
fully integrate these findings in teaching and
The preceding assessment of contemporary research. Also, empirical political science on
human rights research has several key impli- human rights has to fully explore the ethical
cations and insights. First, contemporary assumptions and implications of its research,
research in international relations and com- and a vibrant conversation between norma-
parative politics – as the two key subfields of tive theorists and empirical researchers could
political science – have substantially focused help towards that goal. Finally, human rights
on the causes and consequences of physical norms have proven to be the language of less
integrity rights as well as civil and political powerful agents in speaking for justice and
rights. Amidst growing material inequality advancing their interests against more pow-
and hierarchical stratification among various erful and exploitative institutions; yet, the
identity-based groups, further empirical recent rise of illiberal populism and authori-
research has to be conducted on other types tarianism has also shown how the language
of rights, such as socio-economic rights and of human rights can be instrumentalized in
its broader structural causes and conse- ways that undermine the dignity of the pow-
quences. Second, much of the comparative erless people.
and multi-country research on human rights
has shown some correlational findings,
whereby specific rights have been found to
correlate to a particular variable (e.g. foreign references
aid, trade, corruption). Future studies may
need to explore such correlations while also Ayoob, M., 2002. Humanitarian Intervention
focusing on the causal mechanisms that link and State Sovereignty. The International
Journal of Human Rights, 6(1), pp.81–102.
those variables. Third, the contemporary
Acharya, A., 2002. Redefining the Dilemmas of
political science research on human rights Humanitarian Intervention. Journal of Interven-
has emphasized the structures of power rela- tion and Statebuilding, 56(3), pp.373–381.
tions within and across societies as key ana- Badie, B., 2000. The Imported State: The West-
lytic perspectives for understanding human ernization of the Political Order, Stanford, CA:
rights outcomes and behavioral patterns. Yet, Stanford University Press.
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1477

Borgwardt, E., 2007. A New Deal for the Hafner-Burton, E.M., Hyde, S.D. & Jablonski,
World: America’s Vision for Human Rights, R.S., 2013. When Do Governments Resort to
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Election Violence? British Journal of Political
Chandler, D.G., 2001. The Road to Military Science, 44(1), pp.149–179.
Humanitarianism: How the Human Rights Hirst, A., 2013. Leo Strauss and the Invasion of
NGOs Shaped A New Humanitarian Agenda. Iraq: Encountering the Abyss, New York:
Human Rights Quarterly, 23(3), pp.678–700. Routledge.
Cingranelli, D. & Richards, D., 1999. Respect Hopgood, S., 2013. The Endtimes of Human
for Human Rights after the End of the Cold Rights, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
War. Journal of Peace Research, 36(5), Press.
pp.511–534. Hopgood, S., 2014. Challenges to the Global
Cohen, J., 2008. Rethinking Human Rights, Human Rights Regime: Are Human Rights
Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Still an Effective Language for Social Change?
Globalization. Political Theory, 36(4), International Journal of Human Rights, 20,
pp.578–606. pp.67–75.
Cohen, D.K. & Green, A.H., 2012. Dueling ICISS/International Commission on Intervention
incentives: Sexual violence in Liberia and the and State Sovereignty, 2001. The Responsibility
politics of human rights advocacy. Journal of to Protect: Report of the ICISS. Ottawa: Inter-
Peace Research, 49(3), pp.445–458. national Development Research Centre.
Davenport, C., 2007. State Repression and the Jensen, S.L.B., 2016. The Making of International
Domestic Democratic Peace, New York: Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge
Cambridge University Press. University Press.
Downs, G.W., Rocke, D.M. & Barsoom, P.N., Jensen, S.L.B., 2017. Putting to Rest the Three
1996. Is the Good News about Compliance Generations Theory of Human Rights. Available
Good News about Cooperation? Interna- at: [Link]
tional Organization, 50(3), pp.379–406. to-rest-the-three-generations-theory-of-
Doyle, M.W. (2015). The Question of Interven- human-rights/ [Accessed August 20, 2018].
tion: John Stuart Mill and the Responsibility Keck, M.E. & Sikkink, K., 1998. Activists Beyond
to Protect. New Haven: Yale University Press. Borders: Advocacy Networks in International
Fariss, C.J., 2014. Respect for Human Rights has Politics, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Press.
Standard of Accountability. American Political Keohane, R.O. & Nye, J.S., 1977. Power and
Science Review, 108(2), pp.297–318. Interdependence: World Politics in Transition,
Fassin, D., 2012. Humanitarian Reason: A Moral New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
History of the Present, Berkeley, Los Angeles Klose, F., 2015. The emergence of humanitarian
and London: University of California Press. intervention: three centuries of ‘enforcing
Fukuyama, F., 1992. The End of History and the humanity’. In F. Klose, ed. The Emergence of
Last Man, United States: The Free Press. Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas and
Goldhagen, D., 1996. Hitler’s Willing Execution- Practice from the Nineteenth Century to the
ers: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University
New York: Knopf. Press, pp.1–28.
Gregg, B., 2016. The Human Rights State, Krasner, S.D., 2010. Revisiting ‘The Second Image
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Reversed’. Paper prepared for a conference
Hafner-Burton, E., 2009. Forced to Be Good: in honor of Peter Gourevitch, University of
Why Trade Agreements Boost Human Rights, California, San Diego, April 23–24, 2010, p.17.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. MacFarlane, S.N., Thielking, C.J. & Weiss, T.G.,
Hafner-Burton, E.M., 2013. Making Human 2004. The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone
Rights a Reality, Princeton, New Jersey: Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?
Princeton University Press. Third World Quarterly, 25(5), pp.977–992.
Hafner-Burton, E.M., 2014. A Social Science of Macklem, P., 2015. What are Human Rights?
Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research, Moral, Political, Legal Theory. Oxford University
51(2), pp.273–286. Press Blog. Available at: [Link]
1478 The SAGe hAndbook of PoliTicAl Science

com/2015/12/what-are-human-rights-moral- eds. American Hegemony and the Rise of

political-legal-theory/ [Accessed August 5, Emerging Powers: Cooperation or Conflict,
2018]. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp.3–
Mamdani, M., 2010. Responsibility to Protect 18.
or Right to Punish? Journal of Intervention Regilme, S.S.F., 2018a. Does US Foreign Aid Under-
and Statebuilding, 4(1), pp.53–67. mine Human Rights? The ‘Thaksinification’ of
Mearsheimer, J.J., 1994. The False Promise of the War on Terror Discourses and the Human
International Institutions. International Secu- Rights Crisis in Thailand, 2001 to 2006. Human
rity, 19(3), pp.5–49. Rights Review, 19(1), pp.73–95.
Moravcsik, A., 1995. Explaining International Regilme, S.S.F., 2018b. A Human Rights Tragedy:
Human Rights Regime: Liberal Theory and Strategic Localization of US Foreign Policy in
Western Europe. European Journal of Inter- Colombia. International Relations, 32(3),
national Relations, 1(2), pp.157–189. pp.343–365.
Moyn, S., 2018a. A Powerless Companion: Regilme, S.S.F., 2018c. The Global Politics of
Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism. Human Rights: From Human Rights to Human
Law and Contemporary Problems, pp.1–25. Dignity? International Political Science Review,
Moyn, S., 2018b. Not Enough: Human Rights in 40(2), pp.279–290.
an Unequal World, Cambridge and London: Regilme, S.S.F., 2019a. The Decline of American
Harvard University Press. Power and Donald Trump: Reflections on
Mutua, M., 2002. Human Rights: A Political Human Rights, Neoliberalism, and the World
and Cultural Critique, Philadelphia: University Order. Geoforum 102: 157–166.
of Pennsylvania Press. Regilme, S.S.F., 2019b. Constitutional Order in
Newman, M., 2009. Humanitarian Intervention: Oligarchic Democracies: Neoliberal Rights
Confronting the Contradictions, London: Versus Socio-Economic Rights. Law, Culture
Hurst and Company. and the Humanities [Link]
Perugini, N. & Gordon, N., 2015. The Human 1743872119854142
Right to Dominate, New York: Oxford Univer- Risse, T., Ropp, S.C. & Sikkink, K., eds, 1999.
sity Press. The Power of Human Rights: International
Poe, S.C. & Tate, C.N., 1994. Repression of Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge,
Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the United Kingdom: Cambridge University
1980s: A Global Analysis. American Political Press.
Science Review, 88(4), pp.853–872. Risse, T., Ropp, S.C. & Sikkink, K., eds, 2013.
Posner, E., 2014. The Twilight of Human Rights The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From
Law, New York City: Oxford University Press. Commitment to Compliance, New York City:
Priest, D. & Arkin, W.M., 2011. Top Secret Amer- Cambridge University Press.
ica: The Rise of the New American Security Rodogno, D., 2011. Against Massacre, Princeton:
State, New York: Little, Brown, and Company. Princeton University Press.
Regilme, S.S.F.J., 2014a. Bringing the Global Sikkink, K., 2011. The Justice Cascade: How
Political Economy Back In: Neoliberalism, Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing
Globalization, and Democratic Consolida- World Politics, New York and London: W.W.
tion. International Studies Perspectives, Norton & Company.
15(3), pp.277–296. Sikkink, K., 2017. Evidence for Hope: Making
Regilme, S.S.F., 2014b. The Social Science of Human Rights Work in the 21st Century,
Human Rights: The Need for a ‘Second Image’ Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reversed? Third World Quarterly, 35(8), Sikkink, K. & Kim, H.J., 2013. The Justice
pp.1390–1405. Cascade: The Origins and Effectiveness of
Regilme, S.S.F., 2016. Why Asia’s Oldest Democ- Prosecutions of Human Rights Violations.
racy is Bound to Fail. Journal of Developing Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
Societies, 32(3), pp.220–245. 9(1), pp.269–285.
Regilme, S.S.F.J. & Parisot, J., 2017. Introduction: Simmons, B.A., 2009. Mobilizing for Human
American hegemony – global cooperation Rights, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
and conflict. In J. Parisot & S.S.F.J. Regilme, University Press.
 hUMAn RiGhTS And hUMAniTARiAn inTeRVenTionS in The inTeRnATionAl ARenA 1479

Simms, B. & Trim, D.J.B., 2011. Towards [Link]/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/

a history of humanitarian intervention. Backgrounder%20R2P%[Link]
In B. Simms and D. J. B. Trim, eds, Humanitarian (Accessed on 4 November, 2019).
Intervention: A History, New York City: Walling, C.B., 2015. Human Rights Norms,
Cambridge University Press, pp.1–25. State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian
Teson, F. & Van Der Vossen, B., 2017. Debating Intervention. Human Rights Quarterly, 37(2),
Humanitarian Intervention: Should We Try to pp.383–413.
Save Strangers, New York: Oxford University Waltz, S., 2002. Reclaiming and rebuilding the
Press. history of the Universal Declaration of Human
Tsutsui, K. & Hafner-Burton, E.M., 2005. Human Rights. Third World Quarterly, 23(3),
Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of pp.437–448.
Empty Promises. American Journal of Sociology, Welsh, J., 2004. Introduction. In J. Welsh, ed.,
110(5), pp.1373–1411. Humanitarian Intervention and International
United Nations, 2013. The Responsibility to Relations, New York: Oxford University Press,
Protect: Background Note. Available at: http:// pp.1–10.

View publication stats