Academic literature on the topic 'Statssuveränitet'

The purpose of this study is to analyze how the parties (USA, Great Britain, UN and the European Union) legitimize their intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina as seen from without the conceptions of sovereignty and intervention.

USA and the UN have legitimized their intervention on security reasons. The American president, George W. Bush, claimed that democracies never engage in war with each other and that democracies were prosperous just because they were democracies. According to the president, that is why it is important to democratise the whole Balkan region to protect the international community from terrorism which grows in unstable and undemocratic states. UN resolutions claim that the situation in Bosnia is a threat to international peace and security and urged all state members to do everything they can for stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

European Union and Great Britain saw the organized crime that spreads through Balkan as a major threat to Europe. To be able to deal with his problem, EU is asking for more cooperation among the European states. Bosnia is a member of the Council of Europe and is also involved in the Stabilisation and association process for South eastern Europe with the EU. The purpose of these memberships is to foster the political and economic development in Bosnia and lead to full membership in the European Union, but only if Bosnia fulfils all the reforms that EU demands. To get economic aid from the EU, Bosnian leaders are forced to reform and engage in regional cooperation.

In the long run democratisation is the goal for all the parties, while security is the main issue at short-term. That is why the main concern for USA is for now the war on terrorism and organized crime for the EU. When signing the Dayton peace agreement, Bosnian leaders have agreed upon sharing sovereignty with the international community indefinitely. Dayton agreement calls also on all the parties to help Bosnia develop stable and democratic institutions and help the Bosnian leaders in theirs strive for peace.

The international community is based on principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. Sovereignty can be defined as the right for autonomy and the right for non-intervention. These principles are not as important today as they were during the Cold War. Globalisation and marginalisation has made it more acceptable to intervene and share sovereignty with other states and ganisations. That means that the traditional view on sovereignty as a mean for maintaining order and view on interventions as a threat to the sovereignty is less significant in modern times. The reason for this is that the definition on sovereignty and intervention changes to able to adjust its self to the political situation in the world. That is, definition on sovereignty and interventionwill differ from time to time.

Detta är en teoretisk uppsats som jämför ett antal olika relevanta teoretikers problematisering av begreppen IMF conditionality, nationellt ägandeskap och statssuveränitet samt dessa teoretikers syn på relationen mellan dessa. Jag har analyserat innehållet i ett antal olika litterära källor och jag refererar till ett flertal antal teoretiker. De ekonomiska lån som IMF ger till stater är villkorade med åtaganden som mottagarlandet måste uppfylla. Dessa villkor hänvisas ofta till som IMF conditioanlity. Statssuveränitet och nationellt ägandeskap definieras som en stats kontroll av sin egen inhemska politik, i denna uppsats begränsad till att gälla den ekonomiska politiken. Statssuveränitet går att definiera i ett vidare och i ett snävare perspektiv. I den snävare så är det regeringens kontroll av dessa frågor som är avgörande medan det i den bredare handlar om folkets kontroll av dessa frågor. Vissa teoretiker anser att IMF conditionality underminerar statens suveränitet och statens nationella ägandeskap av sin inhemska ekonomiska politik och att dessa villkor därigenom också försvagar folkets möjlighet till självbestämmande. Dessa teoretiker anser med andra ord att staten håller på att förlora kontrollen över den politiska utvecklingen och då staten är det medium genom vilket folket är hänvisat till att utöva inflytande genom allmänna val så undermineras på samma gång folkens möjlighet att påverka den politiska utvecklingen. Statssuvuränitet undermineras således både i snäv och bred definition på grund av IMF conditionality. Vissa teoretiker anser att statssuveränitet endast försvagas i dess bredare och inte i dess snävare genom att folket förlorar i ägandeskap genom att regeringen genom IMF conditionality gör sig i högre grad oberoende av folkets vilja. Ytterligare andra teoretiker försvarar IMF conditionality och hävdar att det hela handlar om ett partnerskap mellan mottagare och givare där låntagarnationen inte har gett upp ägandeskap och att IMF conditionality finns som en garant för att reformerna genomförs på ett effektivt sätt. Mottagarnationen har frivilligt tecknat ett avtal med IMF och har frivilligt gått med på att genomföra dessa reformer så det nationella ägandeskapet har inte förminskats menar dessa teoretiker. Jag kommer i denna uppsats fram till att IMF conditionality de facto har en negativ inverkan på staters nationella ägandeskap och på dessa staters suveränitet både i bred och i snäv definition.

Sedan andra världskrigets slut har internationell debatt förekommit angående hur internationellt bemötande bör ske då en främmande befolkning utsätts för våld och övergrepp av dess egen statsledning. Ofta har inom ramen för denna debatt normen om icke-intervention kommit att ställas mot ett globalt förespråkande av mänskliga rättigheter.Efter uppmaning av FN:s tidigare Generalsekreterare Kofi Annan, upprättades år 2000 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Kommissionens arbete mynnade ut i en rapport benämnd The Responsibility to Protect, vilken syftar till att söka internationell konsensus kring möjligheten att genomföra intervention med humanitärt skydd som mål, samt rekommendationer om hur en sådan bör ske.Syftet med uppsatsen är att genom kvalitativ textanalys söka svar på i vilken omfattning rekommendationerna inom The Responsibility to Protect överensstämmer med internationellt agerande under den inomstatliga konflikten i Libyen 2011.Studiens resultat visar på att internationellt agerande från FN, dess medlemsländer samt internationella organisationer till viss del överensstämmer med rapportens förespråkade konflikthantering innan demonstrationer utbröt i Libyen. Vidare visar studien att internationellt agerande väl överensstämmer med The Responsibility to Protect´s rekommendationer, då de libyska demonstrationerna eskalerade och mynnade ut i en inomstatlig väpnad konflikt.
Since the end of the Second World War there has been an international debate on how to address conflictsituations, where foreign populations are victims of abuse by actions perpetrated by their own government. Thetraditional norm of non-intervention has been confronted with growing support of global perspectives of humanrights.After several pleas from the UN Secretary-General to form international consensus on interventions for humanprotection purposes, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was formed in 2000.The commission’s work led to a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The report refers to a broadspectrum of recommendations on when and how intervention for human protection purposes should beauthorized and carried out.This study aims, through a qualitative text analysis, to find the extent to which international actions towardsLibya during 2011, complies with guidelines given within The Responsibility to Protect.The result shows partial conformable actions from international actors in an initial phase, and after Libyaprotests escaladed in early 2011, the study indicates that international measures and actions seems to reflect amajor part of recommendations given within the scope of The Responsibility to Protect.

As European governments rapidly turn their attention to the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement, this thesis raises significant questions regarding refugees’ access to international protection. At its core, the agreement aims to address the flow of irregular migrants and asylum seekers traveling across the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece, by allowing returns of “all irregular migrants”. The aim of this thesis has been to examine if these actions limit two fundamental refugee rights; the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. If so, are these restrictions legitimate according to Seyla Benhabib’s and Joseph Carens’ theory? These two theoreticians have been chosen because they problematize the conflicting view of state sovereignty in relation to refugees’ rights. This is significant when the state maintains border control and is responsible to prevent refugees from entering the state. This thesis shows that the EU-Turkey agreement is not compatible with the practical obligations of states under international law and the European Union asylum policy, simply because Turkey is not a safe third country for refugees to be sent back to. Thus, the actions within the agreement does restrict refugees’ right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement. These restrictions cannot be considered legitimate, based on the thesis’ theoretical approach. To study the EU-Turkey agreement involves addressing one of the most urgent topics in international law and political theory, as well as providing normative grounds for future migration agreements between states.

Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna.

Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans.

The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions.

One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.

A big dilemma in the international politics is how the human rights can be combined with the states’ sovereignty. It has been a problem for a long time for the UN to know how to react when human rights are being violated and when to be able to use a military intervention.

The government of Canada established a commission named ICISS to find a solution to this dilemma. The commission presented a report in the end of 2001 called Responsibility to Protect which was accepted as a norm of UN in 2005. The rapport offers solutions for the Security Council in cases of violations of human rights in foreign states.

This thesis studies what this report means and examines if it is plausible and desirable from the perspectives of realism, constructivism and liberalism. To test the plausibility and the desirability is it also reviewed if the report can be understood in different ways.

It turns out that realism finds the report mostly unplausible and not desirable. The liberalism regards the report as both plausible and desirable but finds that it is failing in some parts. The constructivism reckons the report as plausible but not necessarily desirable. It is also shown that the report can be understood in different ways which reduce its plausibility and desirability.

However, the report offers possible solutions to a difficult dilemma and is a serious contribution to the conflict between the state and the individual.