| dc.description.abstract | Following the Cold War, the international community began to foster and grow the norm of states possessing obligations to people outside of their own country. This concept addresses the changing perception in humanitarian intervention and creates the impression that human rights are in fact something the world has an obligation to uphold, even if violations of such rights are occurring within a different state's borders. This obligation is further expounded upon in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a landmark commitment endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, upheld by all member states of the United Nations (UN) to prevent crimes against humanity, and depending upon the interpreter, allowing states to violate sovereignty to protect others against such crimes. Despite these considerations many 'failures' by the international community in the intervention of severe human rights abuses exist. However, such failures to intervene raise a larger question. Amongst scholars a consensus exists that within the international community, the norm of humanitarian intervention prevails and has following the termination of the Cold War. This paper empirically tests the pervasiveness of the norm and aims to determine how often the international community actually engages with a state that is systematically violating its citizens' human rights. Ultimately, this paper asks: how has recognition of humanitarian intervention norms, specifically at the end of the Cold War and the passage of R2P, affected the willingness of UN bodies to condemn states' gross human rights violations? | |
