Transcript Making Peace in Slivonia

Making Peace in Slivonia
An exercise in peacekeeping/
conflict resolution
MUIMUN 2011
This file can be downloaded from
my website
• http://reinhardmeyers.uni-muenster.de
There you can also find further material
to accompany our seminars on
International Theory, International
Politics, and Peace & Conflict Studies
Lost in the maze ??? Send email to
[email protected]
Role Game (i) - Definition
• A fictitious behaviour process used for
research, training, and preparation of
decisions
• A process in the course of which the
participants playing defined roles are
confronted with practical problems making
up a scenario; on the basis of prior
determined rules these problems demand
decisions and actions which lead to an
appropriate solution
Role Game (II) - Ends
• To test purposive, rational, flexible, and
reaction-reliable decision-making
behaviour in planning processes
• The optimisation of cooperation and
decision-making behaviour under the
pressure of time
• The intensification of learning effects
by emphatic participation
Role game (III) - Particulars
• Information:
• Use all information given to you orally or in
printed form (handouts etc.) or by electronic
devices
• Add on own information sources (newspaper
clippings, learned articles, books, internet)
• Ask the academic staff in residence if you
cannot find your own solution to your
information deficit
Role game (IV) – Particulars contd.
• Negotiating Process:
• What aims do you want to achieve ?
• What resources do you have, by which
means are you to achieve your aims ?
• What are the temporary/permanent alliances
you can forge and use in the process of
achieving your aim ?
• What is the most likely character,
composition, and content of your
negotiation partner’s interests and aims ?
Role game advice
The problem: humanitarian intervention
H.I. defined as „military intervention in a state, without
the approval of its authorities, and with the purpose
of preventing wide-spread suffering or death among
the inhabitants“ (Adam Roberts 1993)
► use of military force, exclusion of non-
forcible action
► absence of the target state‘s permission
(incl. situations of state failure & state
collapse)
► aim to help non-nationals
Consequences of different theories
for the legitimation of H.I.
what should we do ?
what are the limits of our ambitions ?
Realism
Rationalism
Political
Expediency,
National
interest
International
legal
appropriateness
Idealism
Responsibility
to
protect - R2P
Consequences … if you are a Realist…(I)
International humanitarian intervention poses
no akward questions to political decisionmakers.
Within a rationally calculated framework of
national interests and political expediency,
intervention can be regarded as one
instrument in a whole battery of means from
gentle persuasion to outright warfare.
Reference back to the „ethics of responsibility“
– Verantwortungsethik (Max Weber)
Consequences …if you are a Realist (II)
What has to be assured in H.I. is
►a logically cogent definition of aims,
►a clear formulation of a maximizing/
optimizing/satisfying means – ends relationship,
►a clear calculation of hardware, manpower, and
financial ressources needed in order to fulfill specific
aims,
►a realization of the availability of such ressources,
and
► a communicable entry – stay - exit – strategy.
(legal) form follows (political)
function
Consequences…if you are a Rationalist…
Early discussion of the concept backtraced to
16th & 17th Century Internat. Law classics –
from Vitoria to Grotius
De Jure Belli ac Pacis 1625 states that states
are entitled to exercise the right to H.I. „vested in human society“ on behalf of oppressed individuals & to end human suffering
► Grotian Tradition in International Affairs
allows full-scale use of force to end human
suffering (political) function follows (legal)
form
Legally speaking…
Slow change from doctrine of intervention to
doctrine of non-intervention in the 19th
century and beyond
► Monroe Doctrine 1823
►Calvo- & Drago- Doctrines 1868 & 1902
►2nd Hague Convention 1907
►Briand-Kellog-Pact 1928
►UN Charter Art. 2(4) & Art. 2(7); authorization
of H.I. by Security Council under Ch. VII in
response to emergencies that constitute a
threat to peace & security
• The United Nations, formed in the
aftermath of World War II to promote
peace and stability, recognize the
importance of sovereignty…
• Cf. Art. 2(7) "Nothing contained in the
present Charter shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state."
• The principle does not rule out the
application of enforcement measures in
case of a threat to peace, a breach of
peace, or acts of aggression – cf. Ch. VII.
H.I. - a post- Cold War dead end ?
• tension between the principle of state
sovereignty and evolving international norms
relating to human rights and the use of force
• Proponents: imperative action in the face of
human rights abuses, over the rights of state
sovereignty
• Opponents: often viewed as a pretext for
military intervention devoid of legal sanction,
selectively deployed and achieving only
ambiguous ends – cf. In particular Third
World criticism, e.g.non-recognition by group
of 77: H.I. a neo-imperialistic tool !
Consequences… if you are an Idealist …
or, respectively, a Liberal Internationalist, or,
respectively, a Liberal Institutionalist…
• Problem: States, particularly in the Third
World, have long seen intervention as a
threat to their sovereignty.
• Humanitarian intervention is regarded as
no different [cf.Myanmar May 2008].
• Interventions have to be about regime
change if they are to have any chance of
accomplishing their stated goal.
Solution: change of perspective
• In 2000, the Canadian government and several other
actors announced the establishment of the
International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS) – task: to address the challenge
of the international community's responsibility to act
in the face of the gravest of human rights violations
while respecting the sovereignty of states.
• "If the international community is to respond
to this challenge, the whole debate must be
turned on its head. The issue must be
reframed not as an argument about the 'right
to intervene' but about the 'responsibility to
protect.'" (Gareth Evans, Foreign Affairs, 2002)
• Responsibilty instead of control…
R2P – a continuing story…
Report by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges,
and Change, December 2004 [ A more secure world:
Our shared responsibility]
Resolution by the World Summit, Sept. 2005:
„ Each individual State has the responsibility to protect
its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes,
including their incitement, through appropriate and
necessary means. We accept that responsibility and
will act in accordance with it…“
R2P accepted into customary international law
??
R2P much more than military intervention
– a whole continuum
• The responsibility to prevent: to address both the
root causes and direct causes of internal conflict
and other man-made crises putting populations at
risk;
• The responsibility to react: to respond to situations
of com- pelling human need with appropriate
measures, which may include coercive measures
like sanctions, international prosecution, and, in
extreme cases, military intervention;
• The responsibility to rebuild: to provide,
particularly after a military intervention, full
assistance with recovery, reconstruction, and
reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm
the intervention was designed to halt or avert.
…but the main point still is…
…the question of military action remains, for
better or worse, the most prominent and
controversial one in the debate.
Whatever else it encompasses, the responsibility to protect implies above all else
a responsibility to react - where necessary,
coercively, and in extreme cases, with
military coercion - to situations of compelling
need for human protection.
(Evans 2006, 709)
More info…
• Gareth Evans: FROM HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION TO THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT,
in: Wisconsin International Law Journal Vol.24,No.3,
2006
• International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (Hrsg.): The Responsibility to Protect:
Report of the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa 2001.
• http://www.iciss.ca/menu-en.asp
…and now for…
… THE ROLE GAME