Inconsistencies between Libya and Syria?: Pragmatic revisionism and the responsibility to protect

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F48546054%3A_____%2F16%3AN0000131" target="_blank" >RIV/48546054:_____/16:N0000131 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/26482789:_____/16:N0000094

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://www.cejiss.org/issue-detail/inconsistencies-between-libya-and-syria-pragmatic-revisionism-and-the-responsibility-to-protect" target="_blank" >http://www.cejiss.org/issue-detail/inconsistencies-between-libya-and-syria-pragmatic-revisionism-and-the-responsibility-to-protect</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Inconsistencies between Libya and Syria?: Pragmatic revisionism and the responsibility to protect

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The on-going debate on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept revolves around its problematic and inconsistent implementation, particularly while comparing the military intervention to protect civilians in Libya (2011) and the inadequate response to the Syrian crisis. The article traces the development of the R2P discourse in the context of key cases, which fundamentally shaped the interpretation of legitimate conditions for humanitarian military intervention. In contrast to the liberal universalist approach, which would understand the R2P as an emerging norm indicating progressive support of liberal values, the analytical framework is based on pragmatic global ethics. In this perspective, the changing perception of normative concepts according to practical politics results inevitably in discursive shifts regarding the R2P operationalization and implementation. Therefore, hesitations over Syria do not reflect the failure of R2P; the crisis rather demonstrates continuous pragmatic revisionism of its normative foundations.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Inconsistencies between Libya and Syria?: Pragmatic revisionism and the responsibility to protect

Popis výsledku anglicky

The on-going debate on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept revolves around its problematic and inconsistent implementation, particularly while comparing the military intervention to protect civilians in Libya (2011) and the inadequate response to the Syrian crisis. The article traces the development of the R2P discourse in the context of key cases, which fundamentally shaped the interpretation of legitimate conditions for humanitarian military intervention. In contrast to the liberal universalist approach, which would understand the R2P as an emerging norm indicating progressive support of liberal values, the analytical framework is based on pragmatic global ethics. In this perspective, the changing perception of normative concepts according to practical politics results inevitably in discursive shifts regarding the R2P operationalization and implementation. Therefore, hesitations over Syria do not reflect the failure of R2P; the crisis rather demonstrates continuous pragmatic revisionism of its normative foundations.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AD - Politologie a politické vědy

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GP13-31540P" target="_blank" >GP13-31540P: Význam humanitární intervence a odpovědnosti za ochranu - případ Libye a Sýrie</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

ISSN

1802-548X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

10

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

23

Strana od-do

10-32

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85013031180