A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION:

CONSOLIDATING THE CORE IDEAS OF PLURALISM AND SOLIDARISM

Research Essay

Global Governance and Human Rights

0
 A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION:
CONSOLIDATING THE CORE IDEAS OF PLURALISM AND SOLIDARISM

Introduction

In an international system founded on the principles of anarchy, sovereignty of states and

diversity, it appears contradictory that human rights, similarly to natural law, are proclaimed to
be universal, inherent and non-derogable. Yet, their binding nature has been codified by only a
few global legal documents. However, these have not impeded cases of violations of even the
most basic human rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture. Nevertheless,
through the course of time, after being scarred with instances of grave disrespect for human
dignity like the Nazi Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, the international actors have realized
the need to secure minimum individual justice by embracing humanitarian intervention and the
concept of R2P. These mechanisms allow for circumventing the well-established non-
interference norm in instances when states prove to be unwilling or unable to protect their own
citizens – something which constitutes a main responsibility of states and from where they have
derived their sovereignty. As a result, it could be stated that in the last decades more human
rights instruments exist. Nonetheless, it remains questionable if these actually provide an
effective deterrent to infringements of individual security or whether they are only cosmetic tools
that serve the interests of world powers and therefore, erode the whole purpose of humanitarian
intervention.

This debate about when, if at all, sovereignty could be neglected and whether military
intervention is permissible underpins the main division within the English School of thought,
also referred to as liberal realism or as British institutionalism. This International Relations (IR)
theory embraces the idea that international actors interact with each other; that leads to the
evolution from simply an international system to a dynamic multifaceted international society,
which is capable of fostering world order. Nevertheless, liberal realists feature a great
discrepancy in their understanding of what the place of human rights within the international
society should be. On one side, pluralists, like Hedley Bull, endorse the non-intervention

1
principle and believe that state security should not be compromised under any circumstances,
because this would jeopardize the existing order and would lead to chaos. On the other side,
solidarists prioritize individual justice and embrace the idea of military intervention, since they
consider that no inter-state security and peace could be achieved in the absence of individual
justice. Even though this debate of whether state or human security should prevail was in its peak
during the 1980s when the English School was in its ascent, and despite the movement towards
more solidarist-oriented attitude in the last decades, the conflict between these two conceptions
remains a relevant and unresolved puzzle, something which becomes apparent from the
inconsistent application and success of humanitarian intervention.

Research Question

This research paper addresses the following research question: taking into account the limitations
of both pluralism and solidarism, might a consolidation of these two factions solve the problem,
thereby, revive the liberal realists’ significance by adapting this theory to the current dynamics
and political demands. Two sub-questions follow from this inquiry. First, if the solidarist
understanding, meaning military intervention in cases of systematic violations of basic rights, is
the more widely favored one, then what are its gaps that prevent it from being consistently
applied. Second, would a contemporary interpretation of humanitarian intervention, entailing
primarily non-military means, successfully consolidate the key ideas of both factions, thus,
providing for a mechanism that could be widely embraced and coherently implemented. The
research will offer an original way to overcome the current polemicism within the English
School, namely, by advancing pluralism and solidarism via merging their core tenets.

Methods and Approach

The delivery of the research will be arranged by adopting a qualitative method of analysis and
the paper will be designed in the following way: the first chapter will present the role of
humanitarian intervention in relation to the English School of thought. Then an analysis will be
provided on the existing defects in the solidarist idea of applying military measures in cases of
grave human rights violations. After that a contemporary understanding of the concept of
humanitarian intervention will be provided where the latter is interpreted broadly and
encompasses a variety of non-military means such as economic, judicial and diplomatic
sanctions. Finally, the outcomes of the research will be compiled in the concluding remarks.

2
 Humanitarian Intervention and the English School

Humanitarian intervention is a concept which has been usually interpreted in a narrow sense as
resorting to the use of force against a state in order to stop gross human rights violations.
Therefore, such a military-oriented action severely impinges the sovereignty principle. Stemming
from this rationale, humanitarian intervention could be considered as closely intertwined with the
English School of thought due to it delineating the borders between the existing divisions within
this theory. Generally, three main camps have been recognized. These are pluralism, solidarism,
as well as world society, where the first one renounces any affiliation with military intervention,
while the other two uphold the significance of such a mechanism, because of its potential to
ensure that the ‘basic rights’ are honored on a global level. In this research the emphasis will be
put on examining mainly the first two factions, since world society, similarly to cosmopolitan
ideals, is a stage which is considered as utopia in the near future.

Before delving into examining the pluralist and solidarist understandings, it is necessary
that the key characteristics of British institutionalism, which unite the factions within it, are
presented. The English School of thought is a theory which pays attention to the role of ideas and
history, as well as the interaction between state and non-state actors. Its main contribution to the
IR discipline consists of expounding the formation and dissolution of international society.
According to liberal realists, when communication between units evolves towards intensified
patterns of interaction, an international system is constructed. Usually the actors within this
system through the course of time start sharing common interests, values and they build
institutions to facilitate cooperation among them. This stage could develop further, and once
mutual respect and recognition between the actors in the system is ensured, the international
system evolves into international society. The latter promotes order, which warrants global
peace, security and stability – these being the ultimate goal of liberal realists, and actually of all
IR theories. Nevertheless, this state of development is not static and pushback could occur if the
members infringe the common values and/or threaten the security of the international society.
While both pluralists and solidarists strive for attaining order, they fundamentally disagree on
how this could be done.

Even though the two factions within the English School of thought share the same goal of
attaining an international society and order, the role of human rights, military intervention and

3
the sovereignty principle are concepts that dichotomize pluralists and solidarists. The former
undertake an approach that mirrors to a great extent the neo-realist conception. They set as a
priority state over individual security. This strategy, according to them, is the most promising
one in strengthening the international order. This derives from the fact that states pursue
primarily self-interests, the most important ones being national security and survival. Therefore,
any encroachment on their core values of sovereign rights and equality would strongly
undermine the benefits of membership leading to some states leaving the society and others
doubting that they might be treated wrongly in the future – something that would produce
disorder, fuel the security dilemma, and, thus, render the idea of international society
meaningless. From here it follows that if the non-intervention norm is violated, then states would
not have any incentive to enter into membership in the international society. Consequently,
pluralists, in order to overcome such threats to the order, refute intervention and support the
sovereignty principles even this might be at the expense of human rights violations, which are
broadly interpreted and, therefore, could not be enforced on a global level. As a result, pluralists
believe that it is feasible that only a state-to-state relations are accounted with respect to the
international society, while domestic issues such as human rights are to be dealt with by the
nation state.

The pluralists’ logic of sustaining international order is considered as limited and

unsatisfactory by solidarists, who adopt a distinct angle of inquiry, namely that for the
international society to be stable and orderly, individual justice should be the norm. Solidarists
accept pluralists’ idea about state-to-state security, however, they believe that it is constrained,
because leaving human rights out of the equation undermines the complex nature of international
order. Even if stability on a unit-level is accomplished, the absence of it within the entities would
render the system unorderly. This means that individual security should both be pursued, even
though the sovereignty argument might be occasionally circumvented in order for basic rights to
be protected. Therefore, solidarism is defined as an extension to and advancement of pluralism,
not as a completely different form of international society. Bellamy and McDonald assert that
often states are insensitive to human rights and would rather compromise these, if this would
help them achieve more state security, power and influence. However, according to Wheeler,
when states do not observe their moral responsibilities to the citizens and if state sovereignty is
unconditionally protected, then no mechanism will be at place to secure that individual human

4
rights are upheld. Respectively, the sovereignty argumentation should be modified, so that it
adapts to the duty of international actors to protect basic rights and even resort to military
intervention when necessary. This idea has resonated in the progress made in terms of R2P,
international humanitarian law and the establishment of ICC. From here, it could be deduced that
solidarism is a transitionary stage from pluralism to world society envisaging that universally
shared by all values of life transcend national borders and require consistent enforcement by all
members.

In conclusion, humanitarian intervention has earned a notable position in the English

School of thought. While the sovereignty principle, supported by pluralists, presents a
compelling argumentation, since it ensures equality and stability between the members of the
international society, solidarists’ idea about unconditional respect for basic rights also deserves
credit for explaining plausibly the prerequisites for order in the international system. While states
have a moral responsibility to ensure that a minimum threshold of basic rights is maintained, it
remains debatable whether military intervention is the optimal instrument to promote the
universality of moral duties in the contemporary state of international relations.

The Solidarist Conception of Military Intervention

Currently the solidarist paradigm is the dominant one in world politics and in the IR discipline at
the expense of pluralism. This implies that individual justice is vital for the members of the
international society. Even though sustaining a minimum standard of human rights is a desirable
phenomenon, reflected in the many legally binding documents, such as ICCPR, ICESCR etc.,
signed by almost all states, the solidarist idea of military intervention encounters mixed opinions.
It has been primarily contested because of it being characterized with a lack of any consistent
impartial interpretation and application, as well as, because sometimes it may bring more
negative than positive implications.

One of the primary deficiencies is that the term military intervention within the solidarist
conception is predisposed to inconsistent interpretation. While in the past the UN was the only
machinery vested with authority to call for humanitarian intervention, this is not the case
anymore. The proclaimed in 2001 R2P principle has opened the door for unilateral non UN-led
humanitarian intervention, which is foreseen only in cases of large-scale loss of life, as well as
ethnical cleansing. This development has further strengthened the liberal realists’ argument that

5
in the absence of a global impartial mechanism to enforce and monitor human rights practices,
states are given authority to decide on what is to be considered as morally and ethically just and
when humanitarian intervention is required. Such an assumption is also supported by the
vagueness of the language in which the term is coined in the legal framework. It remains unclear
what the content of basic rights entails: only civil and political rights, or also social and
economic. While some scholars allow for intervention only when jus cogens norms are breached,
such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, others interpret it extensively and include other
civil, political and even economic rights. For example, poverty eradication was one of the goals
of USA’s humanitarian intervention in Somalia. Such an inconsistency in the interpretation,
however, is problematic because this means that substantial discretion is granted in the hands of
states, providing room for maneuvering and misuse with military intervention. A number of
instances are detected when states have used the label of human rights in order to disguise or
justify improper offensive behavior. For example, the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan
were not motivated by humanitarian concerns even though these were labeled as humanitarian
causes, but rather the goal was expansion of US influence in the region. As a result, humanitarian
intervention has been criticized for serving as a tool for evading the general rule in international
law on the prohibition of the use of force unless in cases of self-defence. Most problematically,
this term has, on a number of occasions, been strategically used to foster the hegemonic position
of leading states, hence, manifesting a form of modern Western ‘imperialism’ and affecting
negatively the existing cultural pluralism.

The ambiguity surrounding the concept of humanitarian intervention leads not only to
incoherent interpretations, but also to selectivity in its application. The prioritization on where to
interfere in the domestic affairs, and where not to, often does not reflect the gravity of the
situation, but rather derives from the realist inclination of states to get engaged with other
international actors’ affairs only when there will be substantial gains in the form of geo-political
interests. This practice of intervention of choice instead of intervention of necessity is apparent
even with respect to the global peace-maker, promotor and builder – the UN. Under Chapter VII
of the UN Charter military measures in order to secure international peace could be authorized
(UN 1945, UN Charter, Chapter VII). This is usually done in the form of Security Council (SC)
resolution, which, however, requires that the five permanent members of the SC do not veto it
(UN 1945, UN Charter, article 27). Otherwise said, not only could Russia, UK, USA, China

6
and/or France sabotage a potential humanitarian intervention if it does not serve their interests,
but they are basically exempt from any military UN sanctions. Also, the role of media
contributes to the selectiveness of interventions, since it is capable of putting an enormous
pressure on the international community and pushing it to react expeditiously to human rights
violations in some regions, while others, which are less technologically advanced, might escape
the media’s and world powers’ attention. For instance, in both Kosovo and Somalia the followed
interventions were to a great extent a result of intensified media coverage and civil public’s
demands, while regions like South Sudan, which lack advanced connectivity and are not as
attractive to hegemons in terms of natural resources and geo-political benefits, have been
ignored. This leads to some states being a theatre of war and of primordial concern to many,
while others being completely neglected, despite that these might, in fact, need more assistance
in improving their human rights practices. As a result, this discrimination in the invocation of
military intervention, which is unaccounted for by solidarists, is an obstacle that could, in fact,
ruin the international order. It signifies that double standards are applies and that the requirement
of equality between the members of the international system/order in terms of their sovereignty
rights is violated.

Having discussed some of the flaws surrounding the interpretation and application of
military intervention, it is important to investigate whether humanitarian intervention might
produce unsatisfactory and even reverse effects. Even though it is hard to compare hypothetical
unfolding of event and actual outcomes, most of the cases have been labelled as ineffective.
While the UN is considered as the main structure which deals with collective security on a global
level and its blue helmets are the ones often associated with humanitarian intervention, it is well-
known that the organization lacks the resources, the information and the personnel to achieve
real progress on its own. Therefore, often UN-led missions’ success depends to a great extent on
the political will and involvement of regional bodies and world powers – a fact that illustrates the
complex nature of humanitarian intervention and the need for coordination and unity of
command and effort, which is difficult to realize in actuality. Furthermore, often interventions
might have been started with the genuine goal to stop and reduce human suffering, but then
great-power logic prevails and produces detrimental consequences. This could also be explained
by the fact that intervention has not been planned well enough in terms of selecting the
appropriate strategies and approaches to be applied. Such flaws might lead to the intervention not

7
only being ineffective, but also it being associated with severe consequences, like in the case of
Afghanistan. The political regime there was eroded and replaced with a democratic one for
which the country did not have any cultural or political traditions and foundations. This brought
even more insecurity and widened the gap between the government and its citizens, resulting in
continuing counter-insurgency struggles. Therefore, even though a short-term success in halting
human rights violations might be achieved, the long-term consequences of an intervention are the
most difficult to predict and to control, especially in the absence of peace-building. Accordingly,
military intervention within the solidarist understanding might not be as reliable an instrument as
it appears at first sight.

In conclusion, while military intervention is the suggested by solidarists solution to grave

human rights practices, it may not only be unproductive in improving these, but also worsen the
situation. Building upon the abovementioned argumentation that humanitarian intervention is
inconsistently interpreted, applied and that its success is hard to be predicted, it seems that it is
not as appropriate a means as it was envisaged. The implication here is not that solidarist
conception of human rights universality is infeasible per se, but rather that all the defects in the
proposed solution call for another for another softer strategy, one that does not hamper national
sovereignty so severely and which could be more impartial and less politicized.

Consolidating Pluralism and Solidarism

As proven above, military intervention, despite being a solution endorsed by solidarists, is not
the most appropriate mechanism in achieving the goal of order in the international system.
Nevertheless, if humanitarian intervention is interpreted broadly, so that it encompasses the
contemporary dynamics of world politics, the outcome might be much more promising.
Therefore, this concept, understood through the prism of non-military actions, such as economic,
diplomatic and juridical measures, could offer a softer option, hence, a compromise that could be
made by pluralists and solidarists. Sovereignty will be impinged less and basic rights will be
respected. Such an approach could bring order both between the units and within them, thereby,
successfully resonating the pluralist and the solidarist perspective. That way the conflicting
points between these camps will be eradicated, leading to their smooth consolidation.

a. Economic Measures

8
Humanitarian intervention, interpreted extensively, could, except with military action, be
realized via economic factors. These entail economic sanctions, human rights conditionality
clauses linked with a particular trade treaty, foreign aid etc. Since economic factors are closely
correlated with political power and influence, as well as, tightly linked to the interdependence
between the units of the system, these are able to alter the behavior of international actors and to
push the latter towards observance of human rights. Ever since the Cold War economic sanctions
have been widely used in order to prevent human rights violations. These have been issued in
order not so much to punish a state, but rather to improve its behavior. This type of
contemporary ‘humanitarian interventionism’ is implicitly mirrored in article 41 UN Charter,
which stipulates that non-military measures could be undertaken by the SC when the
international peace is threatened (UN 1945, UN Charter, article 41). While this provision does
not explicitly refer to human rights violations, building upon the presumption that the
jeopardized international peace and security are always accompanied with breaches of human
rights, then it could be assumed that the latter are also encompassed within this article. Even
though the adoption of economic sanction under the UN Charter bears limitations, because the
SC permanent members are immune from these, other mechanisms which could affect
hegemons’ behavior are at place (UN 1945, UN Charter, article 27). The recent annexation of
Crimea is a proper example. While Russia annexed a territory, which it considered as one
belonging to it, the state did not prevent the many casualties that took place a result from its
actions. Consequently, a bulk of economic sanctions have been imposed by Canada, the USA
and the EU (Russell 2016, 2-5). Despite being a world power, therefore, relatively materially and
socially invulnerable, Russia has suffered a deep recession, leading to it entering many
negotiations and softening its initial demands and reaction (Russell 2016, 5-8). Therefore, it
could be deduced that, since no country could endure in a vacuum and interdependence is a core
characteristics of the contemporary international system, economic sanctions could be a valuable
asset in not only terminating human rights violations, but also in preventing the existing balance
of power from dramatic shifts.

Another form of economic factors, aside from sanctions, concerns the role that
conditionality clauses and humanitarian aid play. Currently many trade agreements contain
human rights conditionality clauses, meaning that in order to secure accession in such treaties
and not to be suspended from these, states need to demonstrate that a minimum threshold of

9
human rights is respected. One of the most emblematic examples would be the EU, in the heart
of which lie the principles of the rule of law, democracy and human rights (EU 1993, TEU,
article 2, 49). For example, Turkey, which for years is eager to become a member of the Union,
has been and would probably not be admitted. Perhaps the most crucial reason for that is the fact
that this country’s compliance rates with human rights are lower than what the EU requires
(Yildiz, Müller and Chomsky 2008, 20-25). Aside from this regional organization, such clauses
impact also a number of other trade agreements such as TTP, EFTA, as well as in EU
agreements with third countries like EU-ACP, GSP etc. (Abbott, Kaufmann and Cottier 2006,
309-310). Last but not least, humanitarian aid, which aims at reducing human suffering and
promoting the respect for human dignity, proves to successfully complement other types of
interventionism. This assistance is usually provided by NGOs, Red Cross representatives and UN
bodies. While the USA (like other governments) has misused the concept of humanitarian aid,
which it has employed to grant military aid instead, there have been almost no cases detected
where NGOs squandering aid (Apodaca 2006, 78). In fact, non-state organizations and actors are
much more aware of the situation and the most effective way of providing aid directly to the
people in need. All these examples illustrate the silent power of economic factors, which are
capable of affecting state’s endeavors. Unlike military intervention, they do not infringe state
sovereignty at all, or at least not that extremely, and do not bear the risk of aggravating the
conflict, but rather offer propitious short- and long-term solutions.

b. Judicial and Diplomatic Measures

While economic factors do effectively deter states from their realist ventures of disorder in unit
to unit scale and/or within the entities, the same statement is also reasonable with respect to
judicial and diplomatic sanctions. The ICC, a novel establishment from 2002, is the global court
that directly deals with issues related to human rights violations (UNGA 1998, ICC Statute,
article 5). Even though the decisions of the court, while binding, are not enforceable, these are
considered seriously by the members of the society and are usually followed with other
economic and diplomatic sanctions, especially in instances of non-compliance with the court’s
order. For example, Ahmad al-Mahdi was convicted by the ICC of war crimes in Mali and is
currently serving his sentence (The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi 2016, 49). In another
case of 2011 Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was indicted on crimes against humanity in relation to the

10
situation in Libya (ICC 2011, Situation in Libya: The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 1). A
year later the Libyan authorities maintained that they want to try him in their state, but later on
they did not comply. As a result, this case was referred to the UN SC. Later on, Gaddafi was
death sentenced. In addition to the charges, his whole family was sanctioned with a travel ban by
the UN SC and Libya suffered isolation from the international community. These cases present a
convincing evidence that the ICC has an unquestionable authority and its decisions are reflected
in the way states alter their behavior towards violators. Therefore, while the court is unable to
enforce its own orders, other international actors, both state and non-state, support the court’s
findings by issuing measures to impede the abuse and hinder potential infringements.

Even though the ICC is a relatively recent development, in the past, on the basis of
universal jurisdiction, leaders have been tried in foreign courts, because of the inability of
national courts to halt impunity. For instance, the Chilean dictator Pinochet, during the rule of
whom many citizens have been killed and tortured, was sentenced by a Spanish tribunal (Bianchi
1999, 237). In another case, officials from Bush’s administration have been tried in Italian courts
for their ‘war on terror,’ namely for the excessive practices of torture (Risse-Kappen, T., Ropp,
S. and Sikkink, K. 2013, 157). Those are only some of the many examples, which illustrate that
even powerful states and their diplomats and leaders, despite enjoying state/diplomatic
immunity, are not exempt from sanctions. In almost all cases, the abuse of human rights
violations, aside from shaming and blaming, are supported with additional measures until the
state demonstrates compliance. Especially when pressure both from above and beyond is
exercised, then the results are achieved in a faster pace. While it should be acknowledged that the
transnational civil society plays a vital role in this process, also known as Sikkink’s spiral model,
this topic is beyond the scope of my research (Risse-Kappen, Ropp and Sikkink 2013, 26). It is,
nevertheless, crucial to note that the effectiveness of all these soft tools of economic, diplomatic
and judicial sanctions illustrates that the international community has evolved in the course of
time towards being much more interdependent and sensitive to breaches of universal values,
something that Hurrell has referred to as “complex governance” (Hurrell 2007, 95). The latter
constitutes an interplay of private and public, as well as state and non-state actors, thus, adding a
new dimension to the English School of thought. As a result, it could be deduced that the
economic, judicial and diplomatic sanctions are a vital element in the contemporary international

11
society, which reflects the political developments and their counterparts in terms of theoretical
framework.

Taking into account the fact that states are not anymore the only international actors and
that many international organizations and other mechanisms are at place, the binary opposition
between pluralists and solidarists could be overcome through the use of non-military means of
countering human rights violations. This way state sovereignty, which is strongly defended by
pluralists, will be respected much more, and at the same time, the solidarists’ idea of protecting
the universal values will be upheld.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the primary novelty of this research is its attempt to present a potential up-date of
liberal realism. While the original English School of thought has contributed to the IR discipline
by scrutinizing thoroughly the processes pertinent to the formation of international society, the
divisions within it have bolstered the escalation of a debate whether sovereignty or human rights
should prevail. On one side of the spectrum, pluralists insist on non-intervention due to it being
an integral element for the stability of the international system. On the other side of the spectrum,
pluralists, despite admitting the significance of security on a unit-to-unit level, assert the
preponderance of basic rights, since, according to them, international order would not be realized
entirely in the lack of stability within the entities. While the solidarists suggest that military
intervention, despite relinquishing the sovereignty argumentation, is a proper mechanism
towards securing individual justice, this research has rendered such assumption inadequate. Not
only do military measures produce often ineffective results, but they could be easily misused
with, leading to counterproductive outcomes. On the other hand, if military intervention is
abandoned as a common practice and replaced with a more intensified and advanced
employment of economic, diplomatic and judicial measures, then conflicts entailing human
rights abuses will be peacefully resolved, resulting in a more promising unfolding of events.
Such a compelling argument is fortified by the less controversial nature of these tools. Most
importantly, non-military instruments are capable of breaking the ambivalence between the
camps of British institutionalism, as they offer an opportunity for achieving the goals of both
pluralists and solidarists where neither human rights, nor state sovereignty will be neglected.
That way economic, diplomatic and juridical measures warrant the consolidation of both

12
factions, thereby, facilitating the revival of liberal realism, since it will be adapted to the
contemporary political developments.

Bibliography

Abbott, F., Kaufmann, C. and Cottier, T. (2006). International Trade and Human Rights. 1st ed.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Apodaca, C. (2006). U. S. Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance: A Short History.
Institute of International Relations and Area Studies, Ritsumeikan University, 3, pp.63-
80.
Bianchi, A. (1999). Immunity versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case. European Journal of
International Law, 10(2), pp.237-277.
European Union, Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), Treaty of Maastricht, 7
February 1992, Official Journal of the European Communities C 325/5; 24 December
2002, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39218.html [accessed 18 Dec.
2016].
Hurrell, A. (2007). On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International
Society. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ICC, (2011). Situation in Libya: The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. [online] Case
Information Sheet. Available at: https://www.icc-
cpi.int/libya/gaddafi/Documents/GaddafiEng.pdf [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016].
Risse-Kappen, T., Ropp, S. and Sikkink, K. (2013). The Persistent Power of Human Rights:
From Commitment to Compliance. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13
Russell, M. (2016). Sanctions over Ukraine, Impact on Russia. [online] European Parliament
Briefing. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-579084-
Sanctions-over-Ukraine-impact-Russia-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi [2016] 1/49 SL T ICC-01/12-01/15 (International
Criminal Court).
United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, available at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3930.html [accessed 16 Dec. 2016].
United Nations General Assembly, 17 July 1998, Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (last amended 2010), ISBN No. 92-9227-227-6, available at:
-http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a84.html [accessed 18 Dec. 2016].
Yildiz, K., Müller, M. and Chomsky, N. (2008). The European Union and Turkish Accession. 1st
ed. London, UK: Pluto Press.

14