Kurt Mills

Explaining Postapartheid South African Human Rights Foreign Policy: Unsettled Identity and Unclear Interests

The end of apartheid in 1994 brought with it many domestic and international expectations about the kind of state the new South Africa would be and the foreign policies it would pursue. Many expected South Africa to pursue a human-rights-based foreign policy, but instead it has pursued a much more paradoxical foreign policy, with significant gaps between its stated commitments to human rights principles and its actions in support of those principles. This article explains these gaps. Delving into the literature on norms-based and interest-based explanations of state behavior, we argue that both approaches help explain South Africas foreign policy actions. However, it is the unsettled nature of its identities and interests after 1994, as its leaders (particularly Thabo Mbeki) sought to reconcile a commitment to democracy and human rights with equally strong (if not greater) commitments to Afrocentrism and anti-imperialism, that provides the most interesting avenues for exploration.

From Rome to Darfur: Norms and Interests in US Policy Toward the International Criminal Court

Explanations of state behavior in international relations theory and international law are frequently divided between norms and self-interest. In most discussions, these two competing explanations are portrayed as mutually exclusive. By examining one recent example of US international legal behavior-the International Criminal Court-we argue that these parallel arguments about state actions may actually converge. That is, both lines of argument may, in many instances, be complementary, and it may be hard to find sharp differences in the logic of arguments from self-interest and of arguments from norms.

Constructing humanitarian space in Darfur

Humanitarian space has become a key concept in the field of humanitarianism. Much of the focus has been on how actors on the ground can expand or constrain humanitarian space. This article places humanitarian space within a broader global normative context, arguing that the recent development of global human rights supporting norms and practices may, at times, have the perverse effect of constraining humanitarian space and undermining humanitarian action. It uses the case of Darfur to illuminate the complex global dynamics of humanitarian space, arguing that in addition to the actions of armed rebel group and state militaries, humanitarian space is constrained and constructed by international military forces, in particular peacekeeping forces, as well as the presence and independent action of the International Criminal Court, all of which construct the geopolitical plane in which humanitarians work.

Vacillating on Darfur: Responsibility to Protect, to Prosecute, or to Feed?

The international community has responded to the crisis in Darfur in a seemingly haphazard manner. Yet, a closer examination reveals a complex normative environment where states must respond to three related, but sometimes conflicting, sets of human rights norms – the responsibility to protect, international criminal justice, and humanitarianism. Using competing theoretical explanations of state behaviour – those based on self-interest and those based on norms – allows us to examine the relationship between these norms and map the international response to Darfur.

R2P3: Protecting, Prosecuting, or Palliating in Mass Atrocity Situations?

Much focus has been put on the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians from genocide and other mass atrocities. However, the so-called responsibility to protect is only one of three human-rights-related responsibilities the international community has taken on in such situations. The other two—prosecuting those who commit mass atrocity crimes and providing humanitarian assistance to those affected by these situations—also address key human rights and humanitarian issues. Yet, these three sets of norms and practices are not necessarily mutually supportive. They may at times undermine each other or, at the very least, pose significant conundrums for policymakers and practitioners.