| dc.description.abstract | Why do states conduct humanitarian missions in certain states and not in others? This paper evaluates the motivations of states to intervene in other states under the guise of humanitarianism, with a focus on multilateral, military operations. Further, the main factor that this paper addresses is the role that human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in influencing states to intervene or not intervene, with an emphasis on NGO "naming and shaming." By conducting a comparative case study between the civil conflicts in Kosovo and Rwanda, this paper tests the following hypothesis: the more comprehensive a NGO's "naming and shaming" campaigns are in a particular state in regards to a humanitarian issue, the more likely an outside state will intervene in that target country. Although Kosovo and Rwanda both had "naming and shaming," the difference lies in the amount and substance of the "naming and shaming." This paper argues that Kosovo received more "naming and shaming" at a higher quality, while Rwanda received less "naming and shaming" at a lower quality. Further, this paper argues that these differences in "naming and shaming" contributed to the differing outcomes; Kosovo received substantial international attention, while Rwanda did not. | |
