Responding To Mass Violation Of Human Rights: The Un And Humanitarian Military Intervention After R2p Unanimous Adoption: Case Study Of Libya And Syria

Abstract

The thesis studies the application of humanitarian interventions that are based on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework. Based on preliminary research and literature review, the study established the sovereignty of State should and must be protected. However, the R2P framework clearly assigned the State the responsibility to protect the human right of its citizen. When a State is unable, unwilling or directly engages in the violation of its citizen’s human rights, the framework provides mechanism that can be used to intervene in the domestic affairs of that State. Critics however argue that great powers use the framework as an excuse for interfering with sovereignty of less powerful States. The legitimacy and legality of the framework has thus been questioned. Another strand of literature however provided compelling evidence indicating the model is effective, but its application is questionable since the applying nation adopts a realism approach. The thesis therefore adopts a multiple-case study approach to study the above concerns. The case of Syrian and Libyan was studied and analysed using a thematic data analysis strategy. By answering the appropriate research question, it was established that the model is effective, but its application is arbitrary due to the ulterior motives held by key members of the international community. It was thus recommended for the United Nation to adopt another model that will check the ulterior motives of its member’s States when it comes to the implementation of appropriate strategy.