(1996) This separation of individuals and groups from the wrongs that have been perpetrated against them in the rhetoric and reality dehumanizes them to a degree and allows discourse on redress and resolution to falter.
Having discussed the main premises of these three, for lack of a better word, philosophers one must now look to Nyers, who discusses the political nature of the status of "refugee" and how in the modern, post 9-11 atmosphere many states have opted to lay a veil of security across international border crossing and refugee status. In the post 9-11 atmosphere it has become common place to "detain" and "deport" those who are seeking political asylum when they come from places of security risk. In short the current situation, cumulative of the highly political and state sponsored international humanitarian body that seeks to divorce individuals and groups from the wrongs that have been done to them, creates an almost universal ability of a nation and particularly a developed nation, to refuse asylum to individuals who they might see as a threat to security. In addition the situation of cross-border movement and militarism that seems to be spreading around the world is creating a potential nightmare for asylum seekers and for those who seek to get those individuals to safety. The course of challenges that Nyers discuss have the potential for even longer term harm than do the relief and refugee camps that dot the landscape in many areas of the world and can often exists for decades in temporary and squalor states. The real goal of many individuals in these places is to seek asylum, and in the past this has been the goal of many aid workers, to assist in this asylum seeking behavior. In the past many refugees from almost all the conflicts discussed by the writers in the core three documents (Campbell, Edkin & Malkki) have successfully sought and achieved asylum status in developed nations, or even in bordering nations and integrated into these societies instead of seeking to return to their native nation, as in doing so they would likely risk freedom, fences and pray for a day when they are no longer considered subhuman and when their lives, cut short by the political will of others, can actually begin. In the face of the fact that many nations, the U.S. included have developed a whole new set of tools for exclusion, even in the face of globalization and border blurring.
While global migrations are rendering internal and external borders less distinct and secure, it is clear that state capacities to enable inclusions and enforce exclusions have not diminished, only taken on new forms. (Nyers, 2003, p. 1070)
In other words concurrent with the "ideal" of a global society states are simply creating new and novel political regulations and standards that keep asylum seekers from the ultimate goal of reintegration into a "better" society than the ones from which they came. This in a sense is becoming a new global crisis of humanitarianism, especially where conditions of political "limbo" and backlogs of decision making, in addition to in many locations questionable detainment conditions, are creating a whole class of millions of people with no hope for the future and limited recourse of action. Nyers then shines light on the current anti-deportation movement that could create insight and resolution for this dangerous state.
Campbell, David. 1998. Why Fight: Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-structuralism. Millennium 27. 497-521.
Edkins, Jenny. 2003. Humanitarianism, humanity, human.. Journal of Human Rights. ( June) 2(2). 253-258.
Malkki, Liisa H. (1996) Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization. (August) 11(3). 377- 404.
Even if it, the tyranny of the majority would challenge the idea that sovereignty should be the utmost principle by which the world's people guide itself. Conclusion The United Nations has developed the R2P concept on the basis of its philosophical vision for the world. The organic development of sovereignty in couched in the ideal of control over territories by the people who live there. When the latter condition does not
Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia (1990) What is genocide? When it comes to genocide there is a lot of disagreement amongst legal scholars as to what is enough to qualify as genocide. But basically genocide is described as the logical, structured, planned attack or in other words the deliberate destruction of a national, religious, racial or ethnic group. The said destruction could be in whole or in part. Scholars of the legal system
2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110113576. Using NATO and Other Alliances to Counter International Terrorism The increased use of terrorism to attack foreign nations has increased during the last decade at an alarming rate and on an even more alarming scale of destruction. Following the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States by organized terrorists, and because the United States' response to that attack has since itself come under world scrutiny and criticism, the
Humanitarian intervention is morally and legally justified in response to internal atrocities, even at the expense of national sovereignty. The ongoing violence in Syria has raised the specter of intervention by external forces in order to address the growing humanitarian crisis. Yet to this point, no foreign government or body has been willing to intervene. The legitimacy of humanitarian intervention at the expense of national sovereignty has been an issue for
Humanitarian Intervention The neoliberal conception of the world that emerged after World War Two incorporated an expanded role for international agencies, led by the United Nations, and an expanded sense of common responsibility among nations. Humanitarian intervention is one of the ways in which this common responsibility has manifested. The process of decolonialization in particular has brought about new conceptions of sovereignty and the nation-state. The UN emphasized one of the
Iraq War: Humanitarian Intervention? No news item garners more interest and more debate today in America and around the world than the impending second war against Iraq. President George Bush led a coalition in a war against Iraq over a decade ago after Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, attacked and overran the small princely state of Kuwait. Coalition forces "drew a line in the sand" and forced Saddam Hussein's forces out of