No abstract

No abstract

Supporters of the humanitarian intervention component of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) have been guided by what the article refers to as pragmatic liberal interventionism. In the name of viability they propose legalization of a regime in which the United States and its allies exert a disproportionate influence and are guided by a mix of values and interests. This article confronts this perspective through scrutiny of the underlying premises. Through a close review of US military-security policies and their detrimental impact on past US-led interventions, this article demonstrates the perils of an R2P-enabled regime of humanitarian intervention. Besides being poorly suited for genuine mitigation of human rights atrocities, such a skewed regime will buttress a persistently aggressive US militarism and reinforce structural inequalities. This article concludes by sketching an alternative framework of moral responsibility and global solidarity, one that links human rights advocacy to resistance to the dominant order, not accommodation.

Notwithstanding his premature death, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is widely hailed as a landmark moment in the development of international criminal law. To many, the trial, in conjunction with the broader record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), represents the beginning of a new era of global justice characterized by the impending triumph of law over politics. This article dissents from the prevailing consensus by emphasizing the enduring role of imperialist relations in shaping international relations. Without defending Milosevic, we provide a critical reassessment of the ICTY's most celebrated trial. We do so to reveal the manner in which seemingly progressive legal institutions -far from furthering an abstract notion of justice -serve to re-inscribe a violent and highly unequal post-Cold War imperialist world order. Because the ICTY is far from a sui generis experience, we argue that it is critical to take Milosevic seriously in making sense of the nature and implications of global tribunals.

This article reviews the remarkable success of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in alliance with the Non-Aligned Movement in appropriating the Security Council's normative power to transform the global understanding of the Israel-Arab conflict. We feature the alliance's submission of multiple declaratory resolutions from late 1967 through 1980, which condemned Israel's occupation policies, declared all of the territories conquered in the 1967 war as occupied, and endorsed a Palestinian state. Collectively, these resolutions, including the vetoed ones, legitimized a new consensus whereby Palestinian statehood became regarded as indispensable for a just resolution, while Israel's continued control over the occupied territories became viewed as the primary obstacle, with full withdrawal expected. This consensus endures despite concerted Israeli-US efforts to undermine it. Besides its appeal to scholars of Israel-Palestine, the study contributes fresh insights into the Security Council's normative authority and the influence of non-powerful, non-Western actors. We explain the dynamics by which these actors appropriate the Security Council's normative influence, through its declaratory resolutions, to boost broader advocacy campaigns. Specifically, we highlight anti-colonial normative framing -featuring self-determination and territorial integrity -coalition building, and trapping. The first two dynamics generate powerful political and normative pressure, which, in turn, traps uncommitted states into supporting the cause so as to avoid isolation and the appearance of normative hypocrisy. By featuring the Non-Aligned