國立虎尾科技大學 |

The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted : = A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted :/
Reminder of title:	A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity.
Author:	Rahmani, Hesam.
Description:	1 online resource (247 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-10, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-10A.
Subject:	Political science. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798379419882

The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted : = A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity.
Rahmani, Hesam.

The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted :A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity. - 1 online resource (247 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-10, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Irvine, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

The issue of selectivity remains a highly contested notion in the debate on the legitimacy of military humanitarian intervention (MHI). In short, selectivity can be understood as the practice of global powers intervening in certain humanitarian crises when it benefits them to do so yet refraining from armed intervention in others when it would not seem to advance its strategic interests. Though the scholarship has been largely ubiquitous in accepting a practice of selectivity from global powers, it has debated its ascription as 'problematic'. Critics have correctly pointed to this practice as a problem of 'double-standards' or 'hypocrisy' on the part of Global North actors, while defenders of MHI (or of its modern iteration in the responsibility to protect 'R2P' doctrine) have argued for the necessity of a selective practice of MHI and have construed it as unproblematic, unavoidable, and even pragmatic. However, an overarching characterization of the debate from both camps has rested on a key premise of selectivity as a problem of global power 'inaction' in 'nonintervened' crises - what I term as a paradigm of 'bystander complicity'.In contrast, I argue that the selectivity issue must be reinterpreted as a problem of 'active complicity' from Global North actors to better understand its practice as problematic. Under the active complicity paradigm, I provide a much-needed decolonization of the selectivity issue to problematize the existing scholarship's understanding of its practice as an issue of global powers simply 'standing by' as onlookers to disassociated, faraway crises, and instead reinterpret it a problem of Global North actors typically enabling and producing these crises in the first place through their foreign policies and actions. Upon an application of this reinterpretive paradigm towards previous cases of humanitarian crises, I find that the historical experiences of both 'intervened' and 'nonintervened' crises, as the existing selectivity paradigm would frame it, largely support this contention. As a prescription to remedy the existing literature's flawed understanding of MHI-selectivity as a problem of bystander complicity, I develop the responsibility for justice (R4J) conceptualization as an alternative framework to R2P to account for the problem of Global North active complicity and help us better understand and deal with past, current, and future cases of humanitarian crises.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798379419882Subjects--Topical Terms:

558774
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Humanitarian interventionIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted : = A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity.
LDR:03941ntm a2200397K 4500 001 1141027
005 20231130111550.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798379419882
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30001459
035 $a AAI30001459
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Rahmani, Hesam. $3 1464593
245 1 4 $a The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted : $b A Contrast of Active Vis-a-Vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (247 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-10, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Brunstetter, Daniel.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Irvine, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a The issue of selectivity remains a highly contested notion in the debate on the legitimacy of military humanitarian intervention (MHI). In short, selectivity can be understood as the practice of global powers intervening in certain humanitarian crises when it benefits them to do so yet refraining from armed intervention in others when it would not seem to advance its strategic interests. Though the scholarship has been largely ubiquitous in accepting a practice of selectivity from global powers, it has debated its ascription as 'problematic'. Critics have correctly pointed to this practice as a problem of 'double-standards' or 'hypocrisy' on the part of Global North actors, while defenders of MHI (or of its modern iteration in the responsibility to protect 'R2P' doctrine) have argued for the necessity of a selective practice of MHI and have construed it as unproblematic, unavoidable, and even pragmatic. However, an overarching characterization of the debate from both camps has rested on a key premise of selectivity as a problem of global power 'inaction' in 'nonintervened' crises - what I term as a paradigm of 'bystander complicity'.In contrast, I argue that the selectivity issue must be reinterpreted as a problem of 'active complicity' from Global North actors to better understand its practice as problematic. Under the active complicity paradigm, I provide a much-needed decolonization of the selectivity issue to problematize the existing scholarship's understanding of its practice as an issue of global powers simply 'standing by' as onlookers to disassociated, faraway crises, and instead reinterpret it a problem of Global North actors typically enabling and producing these crises in the first place through their foreign policies and actions. Upon an application of this reinterpretive paradigm towards previous cases of humanitarian crises, I find that the historical experiences of both 'intervened' and 'nonintervened' crises, as the existing selectivity paradigm would frame it, largely support this contention. As a prescription to remedy the existing literature's flawed understanding of MHI-selectivity as a problem of bystander complicity, I develop the responsibility for justice (R4J) conceptualization as an alternative framework to R2P to account for the problem of Global North active complicity and help us better understand and deal with past, current, and future cases of humanitarian crises.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
650 4 $a Military studies. $3 1148605
653 $a Humanitarian intervention
653 $a Responsibility to protect
653 $a Selectivity
653 $a Military humanitarian intervention
653 $a Humanitarian crises
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0601
690 $a 0750
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of California, Irvine. $b Political Science. $3 1184641
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-10A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30001459 $z click for full text (PQDT)