Humanitarianism in Progress (original) (raw)
The world is polarized by an excess of politics, that´s the reason why a 100% Neutral-organization doesn’t exist and if they pretend to perform under a fully implementation of the Neutrality principle it will fail in its mission. We need to move beyond conflicts and for achieving results we cannot isolate them from politics. Delivering aid is not just about one goal of helping the victims, but to keep the focus also on the means that is represented by negotiation and involvement in politics. The citizens of armed conflicts cannot afford more delays because of a philosophical organizational position that is not getting results. In fact is driven humanitarian aid into paralysis.
All-Azimuth, Vol.2, No.1, pp.21-38, 2013
This article proposes to explain the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention by drawing on the English School’s international society approach. It argues that although the sovereignty versus human rights debate traditionally was framed in dichotomized terms, the post-Cold War practice of humanitarian intervention illustrated the possibility of a via media approach to these competing normative claims. Post-Cold War developments regarding the place of the conventional norms of sovereignty and non-intervention on the one hand and the growing space for the protection of human rights on the other, have eased worries about the prospect for order in the international system and created a suitable environment for including of humanitarian intervention without jeopardizing that order. To contextualize this development, the article will argue that Hedley Bull’s discussion of such key terms as the international society, the centrality of states, the importance of norms, and normative change helps explain intervention in today’s world. By building on that framework, the article draws attention to the enabling and constraining factors highlighted by the international society approach, and as such, concludes that the English school suggests both promise and caution regarding the prospects for humanitarian intervention in modern international relations.