Civil gambling hazard humanitarian intervention moral rebellion war
Introduction: debating the hazards of intervention / Timothy W. Crawford and Alan J. Kuperman --Suicidal rebellions and the moral hazard of humanitarian intervention / Alan J. Kuperman --Moral hazard, intervention and internal war: a conceptual analysis / Timothy W. Crawford --Third-party intervention and escalation in Kosovo: does moral. Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Hazard, Rebellion and Civil War by Timothy Wallace Crawford (Editor), Alan Kuperman (Editor) starting at. Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Hazard, Rebellion and Civil War has 0 available edition to buy at Half Price Books Marketplace. Apr 01, · He is author of The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide in Rwanda () and coeditor of Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention: Moral Hazard, Rebellion and Civil War (). His articles have appeared in such periodicals as Foreign Affairs, International Studies Quarterly, Political Science Quarterly, and Security Studies, and in the.
Libya: “R2P” and Humanitarian Intervention Are Concepts Ripe for Exploitation
Newer Post Older Post Home. Right now, the U. Kuperman of the University of Texas, has done extensive work studying R2P interventions. Simply put, practical obstacles prevented any chance of timely intervention. Alan J.
The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine after Libya
There are any number of other legitimate concerns raised by those distressed over the fact that there is now a third country in the greater Middle East in which the United States has found itself at war. At the same time, there are also legitimate arguments being made by prominent human rights advocates arguing that there is still a moral imperative for the use of force to avoid a large-scale massacre by a criminal regime.
The establishment of a no-fly zone was supported by the League of Arab States, an organization composed primarily of pro-Western autocracies which have shown little hesitance in brutally suppressing their own pro-democracy struggles. There was initially a fair amount of popular support within many Arab countries — even among some pro-democracy activists normally critical of U.
However, the air and missile strikes have gone well beyond simply protecting civilians from bombings by pro-government forces to active support for an armed opposition. This, combined with the failure of rebels to take greater advantage of the large-scale outside support to regain the offensive, has resulted in growing nervousness, even from top officials. National sovereignty should not provide a tyrant protection to unleash a genocidal campaign against his own people.
The United States, Great Britain and France have each allied with governments — such as Guatemala, Indonesia, Colombia, and Zaire — which, in recent decades, have engaged in the slaughter of civilians as bad or worse as had been occurring in Libya.
Although it pains me to say this, Mugabe is more than half-right. It stated that governments who abuse their citizens, commit systematic human rights violations, or engage in genocide forfeit the protection of their sovereignty.
But rather than justifying and prioritizing humanitarian war, it has seemingly lowered the price of civil war in the third world, and unintentionally exacerbated the violence and genocide that it is supposed to thwart. This has not proven to be true. Mugabe has never understood that the idealism of war can be as motivating and destructive as greed. Mugabe presides over a nation that suffered a hyperinflationary crisis that makes the Weimar Republic look good.
Judged merely by the actions of their government, Zimbabwe stands alongside North Korea as the two nations whose citizens most desperately need a humanitarian intervention. But Mugabe and Kim Jong-Ill can breathe easy. Western nations are not contemplating an intervention in either nation — because they judge it as too costly and dangerous to do so.
Alan J. Kuperman of the University of Texas, has done extensive work studying R2P interventions. He found that rebel groups that would never believe they have a chance at toppling their government absent R2P, take on dangerous assaults on their local regimes, hoping to provoke a genocidal backlash and with it, Western sympathy and aid.
He writes :. The most counter-intuitive aspect of the Responsibility to Protect is that it sometimes contributes to the tragedies that it intends to prevent. The root of the problem is that genocide and ethnic cleansing often represent state retaliation against a sub-state group for rebellion, or armed secession, by some of its members. The emerging norm, by raising hopes of diplomatic and military intervention to protect these groups, unintentionally fosters rebellion by lowering its expected cost and raising its likelihood of success.
A friend of mine got into the whole online poker thing back in Prior to , online gambling was facilitated by payment processors, primarily Neteller. Then, without warning, the federal government swooped in and effectively shut down Neteller. Poker players and other global gamers had their funds frozen. Much of this, and subsequent processing issues, were the result of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of Many processors exited the U.
Nevertheless, credit cards had been a viable alternative for many years and continued to be for some time. Since around , my friend tells me that he vastly curtailed his online poker.
He plays occasionally on those few sites that still accept U. In his experience, a credit card company will almost always decline a purchase when it knows it is being used for online gambling.
Instead, charges appear on his credit card from what appears to be some kind of retail business in China. Now, however, some states are legalizing online gambling. Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey are the three states that permit online wagering.
The problems facing the banks come during a period of unprecedented regulatory headaches for them. The federal program is designed to choke off access to financial services by industries considered to be at high-risk for fraudulent transactions. On top of this are concerns that the banks may be held liable both civilly and criminally if underage card users charge gaming purchases on the cards. In short, the potential downsides are simply too great for the banks to get involved at this time.