This book aims at the resolution of the dilemma regarding whether armed intervention as a response to gross human rights violations is ever legally justified without Security Council authorisation.

This thesis aims at the resolution of a dilemma which has been bothering international lawyers for at least two decades, namely whether armed intervention as a response to gross and massive human rights violations is ever legally justified without the authorization by the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Thus far, international lawyers may be said to have been caught between giving a negative answer on the basis of the rules in the Charter, and a 'turn to ethics', i.e. declaring humanitarian intervention legitimate on moral grounds, while leaving questions of legality to the side. These two camps may be termed 'positivists' and 'moralists' respectively. In this thesis, a third solution to this dilemma is proposed. The idea is presented that many equitable principles may qualify as 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations' - the third principal source of international law, a conclusion based upon detailed research of both national legal systems and the international legal system itself. These principles, having normative force in international law, are then used to craft an equitable framework for humanitarian intervention. It is argued that the dynamics of their operation allow them to interact with the UN Charter regime and customary international law in order to fill gaps in the existing legal structure and soften the rigours of strict law in extreme circumstances. It is asserted that many of the arguments of the moralists are justified, albeit based upon firm legal principles rather than ethical and philosophical theory. The equitable framework proffered in the final chapter is designed to provide an answer to the question of how the concept of humanitarian intervention may be integrated into the realm of law. Certainly, this will not mean an end to controversies regarding concrete cases of humanitarian intervention. However, it will enable the framing of such controversies in legal terms, rather than as a choice between the law and morality.

This book aims to resolve the dilemma regarding whether armed intervention as a response to gross human rights violations is ever legally justified without Security Council authorisation. Thus far, international lawyers have been caught between giving a negative answer on the basis of the UN Charter's rules ('positivists'), and a 'turn to ethics', declaring intervention legitimate on moral grounds, while eschewing legal analysis ('moralists'). In this volume, a third solution is proposed. The idea is presented that many equitable principles may qualify as 'general principles of law recognised by civilised nations' - one of the three principal sources of international law (though a category that is often overlooked) - a conclusion based upon detailed research of both national legal systems and international law. These principles, having normative force in international law, are then used to craft an equitable framework for humanitarian intervention. It is argued that the dynamics of their operation allow them to interact with the Charter and customary law in order to fill gaps in the existing legal structure and soften the rigours of strict law in certain circumstances. It is posited that many of the moralists' arguments are justified, albeit based upon firm legal principles rather than ethical theory. The equitable framework proposed is designed to provide an answer to the question of how humanitarian intervention may be integrated into the legal realm. Certainly, this will not mean an end to controversies regarding concrete cases of humanitarian intervention. However, it will enable the framing of such controversies in legal terms, rather than as a choice between the law and morality. '...has potential to become one of the most important books in public international law of the decade, or in a generation'. Martin Scheinin, Professor of Public International Law, European University Institute, Florence

In this article, Ciarán J. Burke argues that the 'Responsibility to Protect' initiative has failed. Burke presents a series of fundamental flaws, both with the doctrine advanced by the ICISS, and with the subsequent attempts to incorporate it into the international legal framework. Burke opines that equity, as a source of international law, should instead be used to shed fresh light on the debate, keeping the discourse within the law and away from subjective ethics, and drafting a novel framework which he dubs 'equitable humanitarian intervention'

Humanitarians are required to be impartial, independent, professionally competent and focused only on preventing and alleviating human suffering. It can be hard living up to these principles when others do not share them, while persuading political and military authorities and non-state actors to let an agency assist on the ground requires savvy ethical skills. Getting first to a conflict or natural catastrophe is only the beginning, as aid workers are usually and immediately presented with practical and moral questions about what to do next. For example, when does working closely with a warring party or an immoral regime move from practical cooperation to complicity in human rights violations? Should one operate in camps for displaced people and refugees if they are effectively places of internment? Do humanitarian agencies inadvertently encourage ethnic cleansing by always being ready to 'mop-up' the consequences of scorched earth warfare? This book has been written to help humanitarians assess and respond to these and other ethical dilemmas.

The Irish Yearbook of International Law (IYIL) supports research into Ireland's practice in international affairs and foreign policy, filling a gap in existing legal scholarship and assisting in the dissemination of Irish thinking and practice on matters of international law. On an annual basis, the Yearbook presents peer-reviewed academic articles and book reviews on general issues of international law. Designated correspondents provide reports on international law developments in Ireland, Irish practice in international bodies, Ireland and the Law of the Sea and the law of the European Union as relevant to developments in Ireland. In addition, the Yearbook reproduces key documents that reflect Irish practice on contemporary issues of international law. Publication of the Irish Yearbook of International Law makes Irish practice and opinio juris more readily available to Governments, academics and international bodies when determining the content of international law. In providing a forum for the documentation and analysis of North-South relations the Yearbook also makes an important contribution to post-conflict and transitional justice studies internationally. As a matter of editorial policy, the Yearbook seeks to promote a multilateral approach to international affairs, reflecting and reinforcing Ireland's long-standing commitment to multilateralism as a core element of foreign policy.

An examination of the historical narratives surrounding humanitarian intervention, presenting an undogmatic, alternative history of human rights protection.

Urban slum dwellers—especially in emerging-economy countries—are often poor, live in squalor, and suffer unnecessarily from disease, disability, premature death, and reduced life expectancy. Yet living in a city can and should be healthy. Slum Health exposes how and why slums can be unhealthy; reveals that not all slums are equal in terms of the hazards and health issues faced by residents; and suggests how slum dwellers, scientists, and social movements can come together to make slum life safer, more just, and healthier. Editors Jason Corburn and Lee Riley argue that valuing both new biologic and “street” science—professional and lay knowledge—is crucial for improving the well-being of the millions of urban poor living in slums.

A study of the emergence and development of humanitarian intervention from the nineteenth century through to the present day. Drawing from a multitude of disciplines, it investigates the complex and controversial debates over the legitimacy of protecting humanitarian norms and universal human rights by violent as well as non-violent means.

This book analyses the use of the expression 'serious violations of human rights', and similar ones, such as 'gross' or 'grave', in international practice. It highlights some of the recurring responses and consequences to such violations and suggests that a new special regime - eponymous to the above-mentioned expression - was formed. This special regime is understood as substantively limited to a very specific issue-area of human rights violations. Within this regime, a series of monitoring mechanisms and procedures are in place to highlight, document, and record such violations; specific measures are taken to enforce compliance; and certain consequences arise focused on remedying the victims of such violations. As such, this special regime is comprised of at least four thinly interconnected components: the substantive, the monitoring, the enforcement, and the remedial ones. This monograph constitutes a first step towards the recognition of such a regime, allowing far more constructive and coherent elaboration in the future. Practice around this category of violations may well evolve in a different direction than the one suggested here. However, what becomes apparent from this work is that the serious violations of human rights are a key notion in the international legal order as it allows the international community to depict those factual situations requiring its attention and action.