lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Feasibility of an expanded regime on the use of force: The case of the responsibility to protect
Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.
Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.
2013 (English)In: Journal of International Relations and Development, ISSN 1408-6980, E-ISSN 1581-1980, Vol. 16, 138-166 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article addresses the question of whether an expanded regime on the use of force, based on the report The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) of 2001, would be feasible. The formula of the R2P has since found its way into the United Nations machinery via the final resolution from the World Summit in 2005 and can be seen as an emerging and more permissive norm on the use of force in cases of humanitarian catastrophes. The question of whether or not the theoretical framework of the norm is feasible is therefore urgent. Our analysis of feasibility is based on three logics of human action: the logic of consequence, logic of appropriateness and logic of arguing. We argue that each of these logics contains aspects that must be observed before a regime can be considered feasible. These logics are coupled with three mechanisms of socialisation of norms: strategic calculation, role-playing and normative suasion. We construct a minimal standard for a feasible regime by deducing requirements from the logics and their mechanisms, and then apply that standard to the content of the ICISS report. The empirical results show that the report must address the fact that it lacks qualities in regard to all three logics, before the expanded regime can be considered feasible.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Palgrave , 2013. Vol. 16, 138-166 p.
Keyword [en]
Responsibility to protect; Feasibility; Regime; Logic of appropriateness; Logic of consequence; Logic of arguing
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalization Studies)
Research subject
Social Sciences, Political Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-13627DOI: 10.1057/jird.2012.9OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-13627DiVA: diva2:432056
Available from: 2011-07-28 Created: 2011-07-28 Last updated: 2013-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brommesson, Douglas
In the same journal
Journal of International Relations and Development
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalization Studies)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 68 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf