Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317 |
Resumo: | The case for turning R2P and genocide prevention from principle to practice usually rests on the invocation of moral norms and duties to others. Calls have been made by some analysts to abandon this strategy and “sell” genocide prevention to government by framing it as a matter of our own national interest including our security. Governments’ failure to prevent atrocities abroad, it is argued, imperils western societies at home. If we look at how the genocide prevention-as-national security argument has been made we can see, however, that this position is not entirely convincing. I review two policy reports that make the case for genocide prevention based in part on national security considerations: Preventing Genocide: A Blue Print for U.S. Policymakers (Albright-Cohen Report); and the Will to Intervene Project. I show that both reports are problematic for two reasons: the “widened” traditional security argument advocated by the authors is not fully substantiated by the evidence provided in the reports; and alternate conceptions of security that would seem to support the linking of genocide prevention to western security—securitization and risk and uncertain—do not provide a solid logical foundation for operationalizing R2P. I conclude by considering whether we might appeal instead to another form of self interest, “reputational stakes”, tied to western states’ construction of their own identity as responsible members of the international community. |
id |
RCAP_c6ca3701b8cb4836a22e9e47c5345e81 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/317 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Usgenocide; national security; prevention; R2PThe case for turning R2P and genocide prevention from principle to practice usually rests on the invocation of moral norms and duties to others. Calls have been made by some analysts to abandon this strategy and “sell” genocide prevention to government by framing it as a matter of our own national interest including our security. Governments’ failure to prevent atrocities abroad, it is argued, imperils western societies at home. If we look at how the genocide prevention-as-national security argument has been made we can see, however, that this position is not entirely convincing. I review two policy reports that make the case for genocide prevention based in part on national security considerations: Preventing Genocide: A Blue Print for U.S. Policymakers (Albright-Cohen Report); and the Will to Intervene Project. I show that both reports are problematic for two reasons: the “widened” traditional security argument advocated by the authors is not fully substantiated by the evidence provided in the reports; and alternate conceptions of security that would seem to support the linking of genocide prevention to western security—securitization and risk and uncertain—do not provide a solid logical foundation for operationalizing R2P. I conclude by considering whether we might appeal instead to another form of self interest, “reputational stakes”, tied to western states’ construction of their own identity as responsible members of the international community.Cogitatio2015-11-26info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/317Politics and Governance; Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Mass Atrocity Prevention (Part II); 12-252183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/317https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/317/317Copyright (c) 2015 Maureen S. Hieberthttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessHiebert, Maureen S.2022-12-22T15:16:48Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/317Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:29.979309Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
title |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
spellingShingle |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us Hiebert, Maureen S. genocide; national security; prevention; R2P |
title_short |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
title_full |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
title_fullStr |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
title_full_unstemmed |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
title_sort |
Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us |
author |
Hiebert, Maureen S. |
author_facet |
Hiebert, Maureen S. |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Hiebert, Maureen S. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
genocide; national security; prevention; R2P |
topic |
genocide; national security; prevention; R2P |
description |
The case for turning R2P and genocide prevention from principle to practice usually rests on the invocation of moral norms and duties to others. Calls have been made by some analysts to abandon this strategy and “sell” genocide prevention to government by framing it as a matter of our own national interest including our security. Governments’ failure to prevent atrocities abroad, it is argued, imperils western societies at home. If we look at how the genocide prevention-as-national security argument has been made we can see, however, that this position is not entirely convincing. I review two policy reports that make the case for genocide prevention based in part on national security considerations: Preventing Genocide: A Blue Print for U.S. Policymakers (Albright-Cohen Report); and the Will to Intervene Project. I show that both reports are problematic for two reasons: the “widened” traditional security argument advocated by the authors is not fully substantiated by the evidence provided in the reports; and alternate conceptions of security that would seem to support the linking of genocide prevention to western security—securitization and risk and uncertain—do not provide a solid logical foundation for operationalizing R2P. I conclude by considering whether we might appeal instead to another form of self interest, “reputational stakes”, tied to western states’ construction of their own identity as responsible members of the international community. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-11-26 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/317 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/317 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/317 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i4.317 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/317/317 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Maureen S. Hiebert http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2015 Maureen S. Hiebert http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Politics and Governance; Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Mass Atrocity Prevention (Part II); 12-25 2183-2463 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130670398701568 |