Responsibility to protect or Trojan Horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq

Bellamy, Alex J. (2005) Responsibility to protect or Trojan Horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq. Ethics and International Affairs, 19 2: 31-53. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00499.x

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Bellamy, Alex J.
Title Responsibility to protect or Trojan Horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq
Journal name Ethics and International Affairs   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0892-6794
1747-7093
Publication date 2005-09
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00499.x
Volume 19
Issue 2
Start page 31
End page 53
Total pages 23
Editor Christian Barry
Place of publication Malden, MA, United States
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Collection year 2005
Language eng
Subject 360100 Political Science
Abstract What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Article first published online: 30 August 2006

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 05:26:49 EST