This book explains the international engagement with the Kosovo conflict from the dissolution of Yugoslavia to Operation Allied Force. It shows how Kosovo was deliberately excluded from the search for peace in Yugoslavia before going on to demonstrate how a shaky international consensus was forged to support air strikes in 1999. In doing so, it exposes many of the myths and conspiracy theories that have developed about the war and explains the dilemmas facing actors in this unfolding drama.

Peace operations remain a principal tool for managing armed conflict and protecting civilians. The fully revised, expanded and updated third edition of Understanding Peacekeeping provides a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the theory, history, and politics of peace operations. Drawing on a dataset of nearly two hundred historical and contemporary missions, this book evaluates the changing characteristics of the contemporary international environment in which peace operations are deployed, the strategic purposes peace operations are intended to achieve, and the major challenges facing today's peacekeepers. All the chapters have been revised and updated, and five new chapters have been added - on stabilization, organized crime, exit strategies, force generation, and the use of force. Part 1 summarizes the central concepts and issues related to peace operations. Part 2 charts the historical development of peacekeeping, from 1945 through to 2020. Part 3 analyses the strategic purposes that United Nations and other peace operations are intended to achieve - namely, prevention, observation, assistance, enforcement, stabilization, and administration. Part 4 looks forward and examines the central challenges facing today's peacekeepers: force generation, the regionalization and privatization of peace operations, the use of force, civilian protection, gender issues, policing and organized crime, and exit strategies.

There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, international humanitarian law was created in the West and states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue realist political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. It is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians when the rule of proportionality is exercised. Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. Common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. The major theme of this edited book will precisely address issues regarding the morality of war from a comparative perspective. The chapters in this book will look at two important debates regarding war ethics: a) when is it morally justified to enter in war? b) If one is in war, what are the morally acceptable violent methods? These topics have been debated substantially in the Western liberal context. What this volume does new is to address these topics taking into consideration concepts from non-mainstream Western and non-Western philosophical theories, with the use of concrete examples. Particularly, this means addressing those two issues taking into consideration concepts like Confucian Yi/Rightness, Ahimsa, Class Struggle, Ubuntu, Anarchism, Pacifism, Buddhism, Islam, Jihad, among other concepts. Therefore, this book provides a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war by offering a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. Fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. Ethnocentrism and the preservation of superpowers’ interests dominate international politics, contravene international law and are not compliant with just war theory. The world organization is largely driven (as a facilitator) for superpowers’ geopolitical interests to wage war, even if not morally justified, and stretching the boundaries of international law. By way of illustration, United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction under Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) in Iraq but an intervention under the façade of humanitarian justifications was driven by the United States (US) and coalition of the willing. Similarly, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US influenced immediate collective military intervention (via Chapter 51 of the UN Charter) against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan under Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001). However, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and non-state actor, and is not entirely based in Afghanistan and thus Article 51 only applies, as a last resort, to states that are attacking a UN Member State.[1] The intervention was not jus ad bellum. Therefore, an increasing moral concern in contemporary politics and moral theory is to address moral issues from a non-ethnocentric point of view. In terms of moral theory, this pattern is noticeable with the increasing relevance of comparative philosophy. For example, philosophers such as Chenyang Li (Li 2016), Thaddeus Metz and Daniel Bell (Bell and Metz 2011)have compared African and Confucian ethical values and built up a moral theory based on the combination of both schools of philosophy. Bai Tongdong (Bai 2010), Joseph Chan (Chan 2015), Mario Wenning (Wenning 2011), among others, have equally compared Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy with the goal of finding a moral system that comprises East and West. Thus, the concern of finding ethical values that are cross-cultural is an increasing concern in politics and moral philosophy. One particular area where this concern is urgent is the morality of war. The morality of war/just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, it can be argued that international humanitarian law was created in the West (deriving from the visit of Swiss businessman Henri Dunant to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino[2]) and under a realist perspective in international relations the international system is anarchic meaning that states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. Therefore, to justify something that is usually considered morally impermissible it is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians as evident with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aircraft bombing of Belgrade’s government supported radio television broadcasting on 23 April 1999. Despite 16 civilians (employees of Radio Television Serbia) being killed at its headquarters during these coordinated attacks, NATO justified the bombing (Eko 2012, pp. 393–394). It was argued that the station served a dual military and civilian purpose and therefore the control communications system was a justified target, and not intentionally Serbian civilians, due to its military use that reached over 100 radio relay sites across Serbia (Burri 2015, p. 151). The rule of proportionality is a vexed area and argued as lawful by NATO due to the fact that civilian harm was not excessive in comparison to the success of destroying the military communications command structure.[3] However, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) argued that the bombing for three hours of media coverage in comparison to 16 civilian workers being killed was disproportionate but no investigation of NATO negligence from the Office of the Prosecutor was recommended (ICTY 2000, para. 50, 90–91). Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. For instance China has been cooperating substantially to develop existing peace and security structures in various African countries. Thus, common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. Just war theory has been driven from a liberal Western point of view, with a Christian perspective and almost solely by analytical philosophers. This volume wishes to offer a comparative perspective on just war theory which encompasses neglected perspectives. Drawing on expert contributions that cut across different ideologies and philosophical traditions, this volume provides fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. The aim of this volume is to explore how different philosophical traditions and ideologies can provide normative insights to the conflicts that result of entering war and being in war. Therefore, this book steps out from common edited volumes that only engage with liberal analytic philosophy as a response to these conflicts and tries to offer a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war. Consequently, this book offers a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. In particular, this volume does this by having articles dedicated to neglected Western views, namely as Anarchism, Pacifism, Marxism, and continental philosophy (Schmitt) and articles dedicated to non-Western views, which encompass Confucian, Indian, African and Islamic perspectives. [1] Singh’s chapter 5 utilizing critical legal theory and international relations theory will provide more substance on a critique of interventions post 9/11. [2] The Battle of Solferino commenced on 24 June 1859 and concerned the victorious Franco-Sardinian Alliance which defeated the Austrian Army. In the aftermath, Dunant witnessed great suffering of the remaining wounded soldiers, inadequate hospitals and then self-published a pamphlet titled ‘A Memory of Solferino’ in 1862 (Crawford and Pert 2015, pp. 5–6). [3] Again, Singh’s chapter 5 will provide more substance on just war ethics being applied as a political umbrella to pursue institutional security and political ambitions.

Peacekeeping in Global Politics investigates the changing role of peacekeeping and competing perspectives about what that role should be. It begins by addressing broad issues connected with the transition from a Westphalian to post-Westphalian international society, the ethical and legal dilemmas provoked by armed intervention, and the alternative ways of conceptualising the role that peacekeeping plays. It goes on to critically chart the development of 'traditional' peacekeeping before outlining how the role of force in peacekeeping operations has changed and the close links between peacekeeping, conflict prevention and conflict resolution. The final part of the volume focuses specifically on globalization and the effects that this has had on peacekeeping practices. In particular, it focuses on the changing conflict environment, the growing tendency towards subcontracting peacekeeping duties, and the development of regional peacekeeping capabilities. Overall, this volume makes two contributions to the way we think about peacekeeping: first it demonstrates that the theory and practice of peacekeeping is embedded in global politics and second it shows that there an on-going debate about what peacekeeping is for.

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in international politics, representing a new type of threat that could not easily be anticipated or prevented through state-based structures of security alone. Opening up interdisciplinary conversations between strategic, economic, ethical and legal approaches to global terrorism, this edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future. This volume addresses the issues that are at stake in this dual process of political closure, and therefore rethinks how states can respond to terrorist threats. The contributors range from leading conceptual theorists to policy-oriented analysts, from senior academics to junior researchers. The book explores how terrorism has had a profound impact on how security is being understood and implemented, and uses a range of hitherto neglected sources of insight, such as those between political, economic, legal and ethical factors, to examine the nature and meaning of security in a rapidly changing world.

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 marked a turning point in international politics, representing a new type of threat that could not easily be anticipated or prevented through state-based structures of security alone. Opening up interdisciplinary conversations between strategic, economic, ethical and legal approaches to global terrorism, this edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future. This volume addresses the issues that are at stake in this dual process of political closure, and therefore rethinks how states can respond to terrorist threats. The contributors range from leading conceptual theorists to policy-oriented analysts, from senior academics to junior researchers. The book explores how terrorism has had a profound impact on how security is being understood and implemented, and uses a range of hitherto neglected sources of insight, such as those between political, economic, legal and ethical factors, to examine the nature and meaning of security in a rapidly changing world.

"Peacekeeping in Global Politics investigates the changing role of peacekeeping and competing perspectives about what that role should be. It begins by addressing broad issues connected with the transition from a Westphalian to post-Westphalian international" "society. For example, the ethical and legal dilemmas provoked by armed intervention, and the alternative ways of conceptualizing the role that peacekeeping plays. It goes on to critically chart the development of 'traditional' peacekeeping before outlining how the role of force in" "peacekeeping operations has changed and the close links between peacekeeping, conflict prevention and conflict resolution. The final part of the volume focuses specifically on globalization and the effects that this has had on peacekeeping practices. In particular, it focuses on the" "changing conflict environment, the growing tendency towards subcontracting peacekeeping duties, and the development of regional peacekeeping capabilities.
Overall, this volume makes two contributions to the way we think about peacekeeping: first it demonstrates that the theory" "and practice of peacekeeping is embedded in global politics and second it shows that there an on-going debate about what peacekeeping is for."

This book provides an in-depth introduction to, and analysis of, the issues relating to the implementation of the recent Responsibility to Protect principle in international relations The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has come a long way in a short space of time. It was endorsed by the General Assembly of the UN in 2005, and unanimously reaffirmed by the Security Council in 2006 (Resolution 1674) and 2009 (Resolution 1894). UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has identified the challenge of implementing RtoP as one of the cornerstones of his Secretary-Generalship. The principle has also become part of the working language of international engagement with humanitarian crises and has been debated in relation to almost every recent international crisis - including Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Georgia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur and Somalia. Concentrating mainly on implementation challenges including the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities, strengthening the UN's capacity to respond, and the role of regional organizations, this book introducing readers to contemporary debates on R2P and provides the first book-length analysis of the implementation agenda. The book will be of great interest to students of the responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention, human rights, foreign policy, security studies and IR and politics in general.

In recent years, the English School or international society approach to International Relations has risen to prominence because its theories and concepts seem able to help us explain some of the most complex and seemingly paradoxical features of contemporary world politics. In doing so, the approach has attracted a variety of criticisms from both ends of the political spectrum. Some argue that the claim that states form an international society is premature in an era of terror where power politics and the use of force have returned to the fore. Others insist that international society's state-centrism make it an inherently conservative approach unable to address many of the world's most pressing problems. International Society and its Critics provides the first in-depth study of the English School approach to International Relations from a variety of different theoretical and practical perspectives. Sixteen leading scholars from three continents critically evaluate the School's contribution to the study of international theory and history; consider its relationship with a variety of alternative perspectives including international political economy, feminism, environmentalism, and critical security studies; and assess how the approach can help us to make sense of the big issues of the day such as terrorism, the management of cultural difference, global governance, the ethics of coercion, and the role of international law. They find that whilst the concept of international society helps to shed light on many of the important tensions in world politics, much work still needs to be done. In particular, the approach needs to broaden its empirical scope to incorporate more of the issues and actors that shape global politics; draw upon other theoretical traditions to improve its explanations of change in world politics; and recognize the complex and multi-layered nature of the contemporary world.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a war long in the making and is the latest in a series of military interventions that have showcased Vladimir Putin’s deadly imperial ambitions and the ruthless and bloody strategies that serve his vision of a greater Russia. Putin’s Russia wants its empire back and it has taken the events in Ukraine for the West to finally realize it. Alex Bellamy examines the road to Ukraine 2022 and charts the path from Chechnya, Putin’s first war which helped propel him to the presidency, through to conflict in Georgia, Crimea, the South Caucasus and Syria. He shows the central role war has played in Putin’s rule and how it has helped craft a new social contract between president and people grounded in a shared vision of Russian national identity. For anyone wanting to understand the hows and whys of the war in Ukraine, Alex Bellamy’s clear and insightful analysis is a must-read.

This book provides an in-depth introduction to, and analysis of, the issues relating to the implementation of the recent Responsibility to Protect principle in international relations The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has come a long way in a short space of time. It was endorsed by the General Assembly of the UN in 2005, and unanimously reaffirmed by the Security Council in 2006 (Resolution 1674) and 2009 (Resolution 1894). UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has identified the challenge of implementing RtoP as one of the cornerstones of his Secretary-Generalship. The principle has also become part of the working language of international engagement with humanitarian crises and has been debated in relation to almost every recent international crisis -- including Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Georgia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur and Somalia. Concentrating mainly on implementation challenges including the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities, strengthening the UN's capacity to respond, and the role of regional organizations, this book introducing readers to contemporary debates on R2P and provides the first book-length analysis of the implementation agenda. The book will be of great interest to students of the responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention, human rights, foreign policy, security studies and IR and politics in general.

There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, international humanitarian law was created in the West and states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue realist political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. It is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians when the rule of proportionality is exercised. Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. Common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. The major theme of this edited book will precisely address issues regarding the morality of war from a comparative perspective. The chapters in this book will look at two important debates regarding war ethics: a) when is it morally justified to enter in war? b) If one is in war, what are the morally acceptable violent methods? These topics have been debated substantially in the Western liberal context. What this volume does new is to address these topics taking into consideration concepts from non-mainstream Western and non-Western philosophical theories, with the use of concrete examples. Particularly, this means addressing those two issues taking into consideration concepts like Confucian Yi/Rightness, Ahimsa, Class Struggle, Ubuntu, Anarchism, Pacifism, Buddhism, Islam, Jihad, among other concepts. Therefore, this book provides a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war by offering a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. Fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. Ethnocentrism and the preservation of superpowers’ interests dominate international politics, contravene international law and are not compliant with just war theory. The world organization is largely driven (as a facilitator) for superpowers’ geopolitical interests to wage war, even if not morally justified, and stretching the boundaries of international law. By way of illustration, United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction under Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) in Iraq but an intervention under the façade of humanitarian justifications was driven by the United States (US) and coalition of the willing. Similarly, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US influenced immediate collective military intervention (via Chapter 51 of the UN Charter) against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan under Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001). However, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and non-state actor, and is not entirely based in Afghanistan and thus Article 51 only applies, as a last resort, to states that are attacking a UN Member State.[1] The intervention was not jus ad bellum. Therefore, an increasing moral concern in contemporary politics and moral theory is to address moral issues from a non-ethnocentric point of view. In terms of moral theory, this pattern is noticeable with the increasing relevance of comparative philosophy. For example, philosophers such as Chenyang Li (Li 2016), Thaddeus Metz and Daniel Bell (Bell and Metz 2011)have compared African and Confucian ethical values and built up a moral theory based on the combination of both schools of philosophy. Bai Tongdong (Bai 2010), Joseph Chan (Chan 2015), Mario Wenning (Wenning 2011), among others, have equally compared Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy with the goal of finding a moral system that comprises East and West. Thus, the concern of finding ethical values that are cross-cultural is an increasing concern in politics and moral philosophy. One particular area where this concern is urgent is the morality of war. The morality of war/just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, it can be argued that international humanitarian law was created in the West (deriving from the visit of Swiss businessman Henri Dunant to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino[2]) and under a realist perspective in international relations the international system is anarchic meaning that states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. Therefore, to justify something that is usually considered morally impermissible it is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians as evident with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aircraft bombing of Belgrade’s government supported radio television broadcasting on 23 April 1999. Despite 16 civilians (employees of Radio Television Serbia) being killed at its headquarters during these coordinated attacks, NATO justified the bombing (Eko 2012, pp. 393–394). It was argued that the station served a dual military and civilian purpose and therefore the control communications system was a justified target, and not intentionally Serbian civilians, due to its military use that reached over 100 radio relay sites across Serbia (Burri 2015, p. 151). The rule of proportionality is a vexed area and argued as lawful by NATO due to the fact that civilian harm was not excessive in comparison to the success of destroying the military communications command structure.[3] However, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) argued that the bombing for three hours of media coverage in comparison to 16 civilian workers being killed was disproportionate but no investigation of NATO negligence from the Office of the Prosecutor was recommended (ICTY 2000, para. 50, 90–91). Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. For instance China has been cooperating substantially to develop existing peace and security structures in various African countries. Thus, common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. Just war theory has been driven from a liberal Western point of view, with a Christian perspective and almost solely by analytical philosophers. This volume wishes to offer a comparative perspective on just war theory which encompasses neglected perspectives. Drawing on expert contributions that cut across different ideologies and philosophical traditions, this volume provides fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. The aim of this volume is to explore how different philosophical traditions and ideologies can provide normative insights to the conflicts that result of entering war and being in war. Therefore, this book steps out from common edited volumes that only engage with liberal analytic philosophy as a response to these conflicts and tries to offer a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war. Consequently, this book offers a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. In particular, this volume does this by having articles dedicated to neglected Western views, namely as Anarchism, Pacifism, Marxism, and continental philosophy (Schmitt) and articles dedicated to non-Western views, which encompass Confucian, Indian, African and Islamic perspectives. [1] Singh’s chapter 5 utilizing critical legal theory and international relations theory will provide more substance on a critique of interventions post 9/11. [2] The Battle of Solferino commenced on 24 June 1859 and concerned the victorious Franco-Sardinian Alliance which defeated the Austrian Army. In the aftermath, Dunant witnessed great suffering of the remaining wounded soldiers, inadequate hospitals and then self-published a pamphlet titled ‘A Memory of Solferino’ in 1862 (Crawford and Pert 2015, pp. 5–6). [3] Again, Singh’s chapter 5 will provide more substance on just war ethics being applied as a political umbrella to pursue institutional security and political ambitions.

Peace operations remain a principal tool for managing armed conflict and protecting civilians. The fully revised, expanded and updated third edition of Understanding Peacekeeping provides a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the theory, history, and politics of peace operations. Drawing on a dataset of nearly two hundred historical and contemporary missions, this book evaluates the changing characteristics of the contemporary international environment in which peace operations are deployed, the strategic purposes peace operations are intended to achieve, and the major challenges facing today's peacekeepers. All the chapters have been revised and updated, and five new chapters have been added - on stabilization, organized crime, exit strategies, force generation, and the use of force. Part 1 summarizes the central concepts and issues related to peace operations. Part 2 charts the historical development of peacekeeping, from 1945 through to 2020. Part 3 analyses the strategic purposes that United Nations and other peace operations are intended to achieve - namely, prevention, observation, assistance, enforcement, stabilization, and administration. Part 4 looks forward and examines the central challenges facing today's peacekeepers: force generation, the regionalization and privatization of peace operations, the use of force, civilian protection, gender issues, policing and organized crime, and exit strategies.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle is the international community's major response to the problem of genocide and mass atrocities - a problem seen in Bosnia, Rwanda and more recently in Syria. This book argues that although it is far from perfect R2P offers the best chance we have of building an international community that works to prevent these crimes and protect vulnerable populations. To make this argument, the book sets out the logic of R2P and its key ambitions, examines some of the critiques of the principle and its implementation in situations such as Libya, and sets out ways of overcoming some of the practical problems associated with moving this principle from words into deeds.

For as long as there has been war, there have been demands for its elimination. The quest for world peace has excited and eluded political leaders, philosophers, religious elders, activists, and artists for millennia. With war on the rise once again, we rarely reflect on what world peace might look like; much less on how it might be achieved. World Peace aims to change all that and show that world peace is possible. Because the motives, rationales, and impulses that give rise to war - the quest for survival, enrichment, solidarity, and glory - are now better satisfied through peaceful means, war is an increasingly anachronistic practice, more likely to impoverish and harm us humans than satisfy and protect us. This book shows that we already have many of the institutions and practices needed to make peace possible and sets out an agenda for building world peace. In the immediate term, it shows how steps to strengthen compliance with international law, improve collective action such as international peacekeeping and peacebuilding, better regulate the flow of arms, and hold individuals legally accountable for acts of aggression or atrocity crimes can make our world more peaceful. It also shows how in the long term, building strong and legitimate states that protect the rights and secure the livelihoods of their people, gender equal societies, and protecting the right of individuals to opt-out of wars has the potential to establish and sustain world peace. But it will only happen, if individuals organize to make it happen.

Most cultural and legal codes agree that the intentional killing of civilians, whether in peacetime or war, is prohibited. This is the norm of civilian immunity, widely considered to be a fundamental moral and legal principle. Yet despite this fact, the deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians remains a persistent feature of global political life. What is more, the perpetrators have often avoided criticism and punishment. Examining dozens of episodes of mass killing perpetrated by states since the French Revolution late eighteenth century, this book attempts to explain this paradox. It studies the role that civilian immunity has played in shaping the behaviour of perpetrators and how international society has responded to mass killing. The book argues that although the world has made impressive progress in legislating against the intentional killing of civilians and in constructing institutions to give meaning to that prohibition, the norm's history in practice suggests that the ascendancy of civilian immunity is both more recent and more fragile than might otherwise be thought. In practice, decisions to violate a norm are shaped by factors relating to the norm and the situation at hand, so too is the manner in which international society and individual states respond to norm violations. Responses to norm violations are not simply matters of normative obligation or calculations of self-interest but are instead guided by a combination of these logics as well as perceptions about the situation at hand, existing relations with the actors involved, and power relations between actors holding different accounts of the situation. Thus, whilst civilian immunity has for the time being prevailed over 'anti-civilian ideologies' which seek to justify mass killing, it remains challenged by these ideologies and its implementation shaped by individual circumstances. As a result, whilst it has become much more difficult for states to get away with mass murder, it is still not entirely impossible for them to do so.

The suffering of Syrian civilians, caught between the government's barrel bombs and chemical weapons and religious fanatics' beheadings and mass killings, shocked the world. Yet despite international law and political commitments proclaiming a responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities, world actors stood aside as Syria burned. Again and again, neighboring states, global powers, and the United Nations opted for half-measures or made counterproductive choices that caused even more harm. Alex J. Bellamy provides a forensic account of the world's failure to protect Syrian civilians from mass atrocities. Drawing on interviews with key players, documents from the United Nations and other international organizations, and sources from the Middle East and beyond, he traces the missteps of the international response to Syria's civil war. Bellamy systematically examines the various peace processes and the reasons they failed, highlighting potential alternative paths. He details how and why key actors prioritized their own national interest, geopolitical standing, regional stability, local rivalries, counterterrorism goals, or domestic politics rather than the welfare of Syrians. Some governments settled on unrealistic strategies founded on misguided assumptions while others pursued naked ambition; the United Nations descended into irrelevance and even complicity. Shedding new light on the decisions that led to a vast calamity, Syria Betrayed also draws out lessons for more effective responses to future civil conflicts.

Most cultural and legal codes agree that the intentional killing of civilians, whether in peacetime or war, is prohibited. This is the norm of civilian immunity, widely considered to be a fundamental moral and legal principle. Yet despite this fact, the deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians remains a persistent feature of global political life. What is more, the perpetrators have often avoided criticism and punishment. Examining dozens of episodes of mass killing perpetrated by states since the French Revolution late eighteenth century, this book attempts to explain this paradox. It studies the role that civilian immunity has played in shaping the behaviour of perpetrators and how international society has responded to mass killing. The book argues that although the world has made impressive progress in legislating against the intentional killing of civilians and in constructing institutions to give meaning to that prohibition, the norm's history in practice suggests that the ascendancy of civilian immunity is both more recent and more fragile than might otherwise be thought. In practice, decisions to violate a norm are shaped by factors relating to the norm and the situation at hand, so too is the manner in which international society and individual states respond to norm violations. Responses to norm violations are not simply matters of normative obligation or calculations of self-interest but are instead guided by a combination of these logics as well as perceptions about the situation at hand, existing relations with the actors involved, and power relations between actors holding different accounts of the situation. Thus, whilst civilian immunity has for the time being prevailed over 'anti-civilian ideologies' which seek to justify mass killing, it remains challenged by these ideologies and its implementation shaped by individual circumstances. As a result, whilst it has become much more difficult for states to get away with mass murder, it is still not entirely impossible for them to do so.

East Asia, until recently the scene of widespread blood-letting, has achieved relative peace. A region that at the height of the Cold War had accounted for around eighty percent of the world's mass atrocities has experienced such a decline in violence that by 2015 it accounted for less than five percent. This book explains East Asia's 'other' miracle and asks whether it is merely a temporary blip in the historical cycle or the dawning of a new, and more peaceful, era for the region. It argues that the decline of mass atrocities in East Asia resulted from four interconnected factors: the consolidation of states and emergence of responsible sovereigns; the prioritization of economic development through trade; the development of norms and habits of multilateralism, and transformations in the practice of power politics. Particular attention is paid to North Korea and Myanmar, countries whose experience has bucked regional trends largely because these states have not succeeded in consolidating themselves to the point where they no longer depend on violence to survive. Although the region faces several significant future challenges, this book argues that the much reduced incidence of mass atrocities in East Asia is likely to be sustained into the foreseeable future.

In this major new work, leading scholars come together to evaluate the influential International Society approach to contemporary world politics. Writing from a variety of perspectives, the contributors to this book demonstrate that a proper understanding of world politics needs to incorporate many types of actor and be able to explain the different types of issue in world politics. This International Society approach offers one of the most illuminating ways of understanding the major issues of our day, such as terrorism, global governance, and the role of international law.

Two leading experts in the field re-examine the traditional understanding of humanitarian intervention in this major new text. The recent high-profile interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria show the various international responses to impending or ongoing humanitarian crises, tracking the development from ad hoc military interventions to a more formalised international human rights regime. This evolution has fundamentally changed the way that states and international society think about, and respond to, atrocities. This textbook charts and explains the transformation, examines the challenges that confront it, and asks whether this new politics can withstand the growing crises in international politics. The human protection system is not perfect, but attempts to reduce both the incidence and lethality of atrocity crimes. The authors argue that armed intervention alone is rarely sufficient to halt humanitarian atrocities, but must be understood within the wider context of peacemaking, including non-violent action. The requirement for states to intervene is codified in international law, and this raises important practical, political and moral questions for consistent humanitarian action. Based on the authors' two decades of research, this text is the ideal companion for students of International Relations, taking modules on Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rising demand for peacekeepers saw the United Nations (UN) operate at a historically unprecedented tempo, with increases in the number and size of missions as well as in the scope and complexity of their mandates. The need to deploy over 120,000 UN peacekeepers and the demands placed upon them in the field have threatened to outstrip the willingness and to some extent capacity of the UN's Member States. This situation raised the questions of why states contribute forces to UN missions and, conversely, what factors inhibit them from doing more? Providing Peacekeepers answers these questions. After summarizing the challenges confronting the UN in its force generation efforts, the book develops a new framework for analyzing UN peacekeeping contributions in light of the evidence presented in sixteen case study chapters which examine the experiences of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Nepal, Uruguay, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and Japan. The book concludes by offering recommendations for how the UN might develop new strategies for force generation so as to meet the foreseeable challenges of twenty-first century peacekeeping and improve the quantity and quality of its uniformed peacekeepers.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a war long in the making and is the latest in a series of military interventions that have showcased Vladimir Putin’s deadly imperial ambitions and the ruthless and bloody strategies that serve his vision of a greater Russia. Putin’s Russia wants its empire back and it has taken the events in Ukraine for the West to finally realize it. Alex Bellamy examines the road to Ukraine 2022 and charts the path from Chechnya, Putin’s first war which helped propel him to the presidency, through to conflict in Georgia, Crimea, the South Caucasus and Syria. He shows the central role war has played in Putin’s rule and how it has helped craft a new social contract between president and people grounded in a shared vision of Russian national identity. For anyone wanting to understand the hows and whys of the war in Ukraine, Alex Bellamy’s clear and insightful analysis is a must-read.