Revisiting Humanitarian Safe Areas for Civilian Protection

Bibliographic Data

ID12430655
AuthorsPhil Orchard (0000-0003-4714-3204, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume20
Issue1
Pages55-75
Publication date2014-08-19
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueGlobal Governance A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1075-2846 • E-ISSN: 1942-6720
PublisherLynne Rienner Publishers (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1163/19426720-02001005
OpenAlexW182425286
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited12

Are safe areas an effective option to protect civilian populations from mass atrocities when they are targeted by their own state? Safe areas disappeared from the international lexicon following the failures in Bosnia and Rwanda. But they are now receiving a second look as a way of responding to mass atrocities without full-scale military intervention. This article argues that the earlier generation of safe areas failed not due to their size or cost, but rather because of problems inherent with their underlying logic. Safe areas were based either on logics of consent or the presence of a credible military force. Hybrid safe areas (such as in Bosnia) were based on neither of these, but instead relied on the legitimacy inherent in the UN Security Council. Crucially, in cases where civilians were being directly targeted by belligerents, both hybrid and consent-based safe areas collapsed. This has direct ramifications for present discussions around the Protection of Civilians agenda and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine

Doctrine · Humanitarian intervention · International law · Intervention (counseling · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Public international law · Responsibility to Protect · Sociology · State (computer science · Use of force · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Global Security and Public Health · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Medicine

Tools

Open DOI