The relations within and between the British and Irish islands are now routinely described as never having been better; a description regarded as a cliché. A cliché? Good. It was not so long ago that such a belief would have been dismissed as an attempt at humour.
Although all wars may represent a failure of diplomacy, war is often the last resort of diplomacy. This paradox results from two competing ideas of what the supreme objective of diplomacy should be: peace at any cost, or peace by any means. This is the paradox of Libya. The international military intervention resulted from a mixture of an arguably successful strategy of coercive diplomacy at the UN, and a failure of third-party mediations.
While the lessons of the Libyan crisis for international relations are many, the most important lesson is the need to change the way that humanitarian interventions are conducted, as the violence experienced by civilians since the foreign intervention has increased substantially.
Why does my heart sink when I hear the current UN-mandated action in Libya described as “humanitarian intervention”? After all, over the last 20 years the term has acquired currency — not only among Western politicians but also academics — as a description of coercive, usually military, intervention ostensibly for humanitarian purposes.
From the social uprising that toppled Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime in Tunisia on January 11, 2011, to the recent social unrest in Libya to oust the 40 year old reign of Muammar Gadhafi, many political scientists have been left puzzled as to reasons behind the North African revolutionary movement and where it could spread in the coming weeks.
It was widely regarded as a rare bright spot in New Labour’s pretentions to an ‘ethical foreign policy’. While domestic reform got bogged down in complexity, and foreign policy in recrimination, British policy in Africa stood for something pure – the ‘one noble cause’ as Blair himself put it. But what is the real legacy of New Labour’s pursuit of the ‘good state’ in Africa?
Women’s roles in working towards peace have become increasingly celebrated. The core issue with the association of women with peace activism is that it raises, and reinforces, gendered norms, through the assumptions of what it means to be a woman. In academic literature, these assumptions of Maternalism and Essentialism deny women agency.
Terrorism has existed for centuries as a way of creating disruption and fear. Yet, to declare a war against it has created numerous questions as to how to fight this multifaceted idea. Individual groups do indeed hold ideological stances, just as legitimate political parties do, but to brand all terrorism and terrorists as the same would be incorrect.
The real world is too complicated to be explained by absolute or relative gains alone. Both theories treat states as rational and unitary actors. Due to the diversity of interests, it is not easy to define a unitary national interest in some issues. Consequently, gains per se sometimes cannot be clearly stated.
While we should scrutinise the ICC’s work in Africa, it is important to recognise that international justice is not the only possible response to atrocity. National and local processes are proving to be vital tools of justice, truth and reconciliation across Africa, more profound and lasting than the prosecution of suspects in The Hague.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.