| Abstrakt: |
Armed humanitarian intervention has remained a problematic feature of international relations, both when it occurs and when it does not. Despite the criticism that has trailed armed humanitarian intervention, developing nations, especially in Africa, have remained a testing ground for liberal western interventionism and, by extension, the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and this has generated contentious debate among theorists. Rooted in secondary materials, this study interrogates the RtoP intervention in the Central African Republic (CAR) 2013 crisis within the prism of the naturalist (moralists) and the positivist (restrictionists) positions and the extent to which these positions explain the motives, processes, and outcomes of the intervention. Though recent experiences of mass atrocities against the civilian population in CAR justify some form of intervention on moral grounds, the way and manner in which the RtoP was deployed, including the worsening security dilemma in the post-intervention period, affirms the positivist-restrictionist position on power politics and humanitarianism. Hence, intervening countries must not lose sight of their fears of restrictionists, which has remained profound in past interventions in CAR. Given that past experiences with armed humanitarian intervention in Africa most often create greater political instability, violate sovereignty, and deepen human insecurity as highlighted by positivists, there is a need for the international community and regional bodies to concentrate more on pre-emptive measures that can reduce the possibilities of creating situations that call for interventions, instead of focusing on interventions with toxic consequences as experienced in CAR and other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
