During the 1990s, humanitarian intervention seemed to promise a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would be privileged over national interests or imperial ambitions. Orford provides critical readings of the narratives that accompanied such interventions and shaped legal justifications for the use of force by the international community. Through a close reading of legal texts and institutional practice, she argues that a far more circumscribed, exploitative and conservative interpretation of the ends of intervention was adopted during this period. The book draws on a wide range of sources, including critical legal theory, feminist and postcolonial theory, psychoanalytic theory and critical geography, to develop ways of reading directed at thinking through the cultural and economic effects of militarized humanitarianism. The book concludes by asking what, if anything, has been lost in the move from the era of humanitarian intervention to an international relations dominated by wars on terror.
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. Learn more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.
Product Description
Review
' … one of the many compelling aspects of Orford's book is her ability to generalise the central insistence of how a question, or set of choices, becomes framed in the international context … the pertinence to the discipline as a whole of understanding how a question comes to be asked is one of the reasons why Orford's book will deservedly have a committed readership well beyond scholars of international humanitarian law … Reading Humanitarian Intervention usefully teases out the relationship between law and power … situating Orford's work within a broader body of critical international law scholarship … timely and powerful.' Melbourne University Law Review
'… a useful contribution to the debate.' Journal of Peace Research
'Dealing with themes that have been a magnet for an array of pieties by moralists and legalists in recent years. Anne Orford challenges conventional wisdom in a provocative and persuasive manner. She brings an intelligent and informed skepticism to claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force in the pursuit of humane ends is beneficial for the peoples that are supposedly being protected from adversity … It deserves the widest possible reading, and is a fine complement to the more conventional book[s].' Richard Falk, Political Science Quarterly
'… the book has a broader appeal than just to lawyers …' Common Law World Review
'… an innovative, provocative, and challenging text on international law, a very rare accomplishment indeed [which offers] a theoretically rich, yet engaging analysis of the debates in international law and politics on humanitarian intervention …' Doris Buss, Social and Legal Studies
'… eloquent and challenging …' Dino Kritsiotis, Modern Law Review
'Orford presents a compelling challenge to those who argue for militarist interventions to protect victimized peoples.' Perspectives on Political Science
'… a fascinating and quite provocative reading of humanitarian intervention … powerful and convincing … a success and a milestone that should be seriously considered by all who are interested in human rights …' Ruth Gordon, George Washington International Law Review
'… [a] compelling and brilliantly constructed argument … a vital source for those keen to better understand humanitarian intervention.' Aidan Hehir, International Affairs
'… assists us by providing a theoretical structure in which the relevant issues can be understood and a series of case studies of how things have gone wrong in the past. While [the author] has not made future decisions any easier, her book may contribute to making them better …' Chris Sidoti, NSW Law Society Journal
'… a useful contribution to the debate.' Journal of Peace Research
'Dealing with themes that have been a magnet for an array of pieties by moralists and legalists in recent years. Anne Orford challenges conventional wisdom in a provocative and persuasive manner. She brings an intelligent and informed skepticism to claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force in the pursuit of humane ends is beneficial for the peoples that are supposedly being protected from adversity … It deserves the widest possible reading, and is a fine complement to the more conventional book[s].' Richard Falk, Political Science Quarterly
'… the book has a broader appeal than just to lawyers …' Common Law World Review
'… an innovative, provocative, and challenging text on international law, a very rare accomplishment indeed [which offers] a theoretically rich, yet engaging analysis of the debates in international law and politics on humanitarian intervention …' Doris Buss, Social and Legal Studies
'… eloquent and challenging …' Dino Kritsiotis, Modern Law Review
'Orford presents a compelling challenge to those who argue for militarist interventions to protect victimized peoples.' Perspectives on Political Science
'… a fascinating and quite provocative reading of humanitarian intervention … powerful and convincing … a success and a milestone that should be seriously considered by all who are interested in human rights …' Ruth Gordon, George Washington International Law Review
'… [a] compelling and brilliantly constructed argument … a vital source for those keen to better understand humanitarian intervention.' Aidan Hehir, International Affairs
'… assists us by providing a theoretical structure in which the relevant issues can be understood and a series of case studies of how things have gone wrong in the past. While [the author] has not made future decisions any easier, her book may contribute to making them better …' Chris Sidoti, NSW Law Society Journal
Book Description
During the 1990s, humanitarian intervention seemed to promise a world in which human rights would be privileged over national interests or imperial ambitions. Orford argues that humanitarian intervention had far more exploitative effects. What, if anything, has been lost in the move from humanitarian intervention to the war on terror?
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse and search another edition of this book.
First Sentence
As I began writing this book during the early days of September 1999, hundreds of thousands of Australians were taking to the streets, marching under banners proclaiming 'Indonesia out, peacekeepers in'. Read the first page
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
As I began writing this book during the early days of September 1999, hundreds of thousands of Australians were taking to the streets, marching under banners proclaiming 'Indonesia out, peacekeepers in'. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback
Anne Orford is Assistant Professor in Melbourne University's Law School. This fine book is good at destroying illusions, but short on proposals for changing things.
During the 1990s, advocates of humanitarian intervention promised a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would trump national interests and imperial ambitions. Orford examines and refutes claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force for humane ends is good for the peoples that are supposedly being saved.
She undermines their claims of prior innocence and selfless intervention. She shows how "The international community is already profoundly engaged in shaping the structure of political, social, economic and cultural life in many states through the activities of, inter alia, international economic institutions. Indeed, intervention in the name of humanitarianism too readily provides an alibi for the continued involvement of those interested in exploiting and controlling the resources and people of target states."
As she notes, "the opposition between collective humanitarian intervention and inactivity is a false one. The international community had already intervened on a large scale in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before the security crises erupted, through the activities of international economic institutions and development agencies." She describes how the IMF `restructured' Yugoslavia by imposing cuts in wages and services.
She notes, "the post-intervention administration and reconstruction of territories by the international community in turn entrenches an unjust international economic order and a neo-colonial mode of governance." She shows how the current forms of administration, like the post-World War One mandates for the colonies of the defeated powers are a variant of colonialism, not a departure from it. The Peace Implementation Council, not Bosnia's people, runs Bosnia.
She concludes, "The principal lesson we should have learned from Yugoslavia or Rwanda was, in other words, not primarily that we need a UN rapid deployment force, but that intellectuals and activists should lobby their government's representatives and directors to oppose support for this model of economic liberalisation and marketisation in Eastern Europe."
Speaking just to `intellectuals and activists', she can only urge a `lobby' of governments that are committed to exploiting and ruling other countries.
During the 1990s, advocates of humanitarian intervention promised a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would trump national interests and imperial ambitions. Orford examines and refutes claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force for humane ends is good for the peoples that are supposedly being saved.
She undermines their claims of prior innocence and selfless intervention. She shows how "The international community is already profoundly engaged in shaping the structure of political, social, economic and cultural life in many states through the activities of, inter alia, international economic institutions. Indeed, intervention in the name of humanitarianism too readily provides an alibi for the continued involvement of those interested in exploiting and controlling the resources and people of target states."
As she notes, "the opposition between collective humanitarian intervention and inactivity is a false one. The international community had already intervened on a large scale in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before the security crises erupted, through the activities of international economic institutions and development agencies." She describes how the IMF `restructured' Yugoslavia by imposing cuts in wages and services.
She notes, "the post-intervention administration and reconstruction of territories by the international community in turn entrenches an unjust international economic order and a neo-colonial mode of governance." She shows how the current forms of administration, like the post-World War One mandates for the colonies of the defeated powers are a variant of colonialism, not a departure from it. The Peace Implementation Council, not Bosnia's people, runs Bosnia.
She concludes, "The principal lesson we should have learned from Yugoslavia or Rwanda was, in other words, not primarily that we need a UN rapid deployment force, but that intellectuals and activists should lobby their government's representatives and directors to oppose support for this model of economic liberalisation and marketisation in Eastern Europe."
Speaking just to `intellectuals and activists', she can only urge a `lobby' of governments that are committed to exploiting and ruling other countries.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.0 out of 5 stars
1 review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Useful critique of the notion of humanitarian intervention
28 May 2010
By William Podmore
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
Anne Orford is Assistant Professor in Melbourne University's Law School. This fine book is good at destroying illusions, but short on proposals for changing things.
During the 1990s, advocates of humanitarian intervention promised a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would trump national interests and imperial ambitions. Orford examines and refutes claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force for humane ends is good for the peoples that are supposedly being saved.
She undermines their claims of prior innocence and selfless intervention. She shows how "The international community is already profoundly engaged in shaping the structure of political, social, economic and cultural life in many states through the activities of, inter alia, international economic institutions. Indeed, intervention in the name of humanitarianism too readily provides an alibi for the continued involvement of those interested in exploiting and controlling the resources and people of target states."
As she notes, "the opposition between collective humanitarian intervention and inactivity is a false one. The international community had already intervened on a large scale in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before the security crises erupted, through the activities of international economic institutions and development agencies." She describes how the IMF `restructured' Yugoslavia by imposing cuts in wages and services.
She notes, "the post-intervention administration and reconstruction of territories by the international community in turn entrenches an unjust international economic order and a neo-colonial mode of governance." She shows how the current forms of administration, like the post-World War One mandates for the colonies of the defeated powers are a variant of colonialism, not a departure from it. The Peace Implementation Council, not Bosnia's people, runs Bosnia.
She concludes, "The principal lesson we should have learned from Yugoslavia or Rwanda was, in other words, not primarily that we need a UN rapid deployment force, but that intellectuals and activists should lobby their government's representatives and directors to oppose support for this model of economic liberalisation and marketisation in Eastern Europe."
Speaking just to `intellectuals and activists', she can only urge a `lobby' of governments that are committed to exploiting and ruling other countries.
During the 1990s, advocates of humanitarian intervention promised a world in which democracy, self-determination and human rights would trump national interests and imperial ambitions. Orford examines and refutes claims by governments and international institutions that their use of force for humane ends is good for the peoples that are supposedly being saved.
She undermines their claims of prior innocence and selfless intervention. She shows how "The international community is already profoundly engaged in shaping the structure of political, social, economic and cultural life in many states through the activities of, inter alia, international economic institutions. Indeed, intervention in the name of humanitarianism too readily provides an alibi for the continued involvement of those interested in exploiting and controlling the resources and people of target states."
As she notes, "the opposition between collective humanitarian intervention and inactivity is a false one. The international community had already intervened on a large scale in Yugoslavia and Rwanda before the security crises erupted, through the activities of international economic institutions and development agencies." She describes how the IMF `restructured' Yugoslavia by imposing cuts in wages and services.
She notes, "the post-intervention administration and reconstruction of territories by the international community in turn entrenches an unjust international economic order and a neo-colonial mode of governance." She shows how the current forms of administration, like the post-World War One mandates for the colonies of the defeated powers are a variant of colonialism, not a departure from it. The Peace Implementation Council, not Bosnia's people, runs Bosnia.
She concludes, "The principal lesson we should have learned from Yugoslavia or Rwanda was, in other words, not primarily that we need a UN rapid deployment force, but that intellectuals and activists should lobby their government's representatives and directors to oppose support for this model of economic liberalisation and marketisation in Eastern Europe."
Speaking just to `intellectuals and activists', she can only urge a `lobby' of governments that are committed to exploiting and ruling other countries.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see the review
4.0 out of 5 stars
Was this review helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
