Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) DOI: 10.7176/JLPG Vol.88, 2019 60 Cloaking Neo-Imperialism in the Shadows of Human Rights and Liberal Peacebuilding Saadatu Salisu Matori Lecturer in Law with the Yobe State University, Nigeria Abubakar Bukar Kagu Senior lecturer in Law and Director CRCDHS, Yobe State University, Nigeria Abstract The concept of intervention to curtail humanitarian crisis in conflict zones has generated a great deal of polemics on the matters of state sovereignty, human rights, democracy and even the legitimacy of liberal peacebuilding. These discussions often include the justification or otherwise of both political and militarised interventions. While interventionism has become the most common approach by world powers, the concept of liberal peace building with its cloaked connotation of fostering and sustaining tranquillity and curtailing humanitarian crisis is seen by many as lacking in the not only the protection of people but also in ensuring sustainable peace. The view of some scholars is that, intervention in the name of humanitarianism raises so many questions as world powers continue resorting to militarised approaches that do not translate to the welfare of those they claim to protect. Instead, the outcome has been largely a convoluted and surging circle of crisis across many corners of the world. Keywords: Conflict, Intervention, Humanitarian, Law, Protection, Sovereignty DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/88-08 Publication date: August 31 st 2019 Introduction The continues eruption of conflicts around the world has resulted in series of attempts to build certain international humanitarian and legal codes to address the difficulty of civilians caught in war. Notable attempts in recent history include The Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare (1923), and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention. These resolutions and conventions reflect some of the global commitment to create a framework that will protect and assists those in need of help and humanitarian aid. 1 Despite the need to protect civilians from armed conflict, there has a been controversies in relation to the legitimacy and effectiveness of such interventions. This is mainly due to the shift in approach that brings to the fore several institutional and structural concerns, particularly about the rights and wrongs of imposing particularized understandings of conflicts and also in trying to justify the ‘grounds and the location of authority for the use of force to intervene. 2 intervene. 2 Evidently, most of the interventions that led to more crisis were ones pursued through militarised means. From Iraq to Syria, to Libya, to Bosnia to Somalia, the polemics were enormous. 3 One of major aftermath of this was the complexity not only of the conflict itself but also about the blurring distinction between the doctrine of state sovereignty and non-interventionism principles. What it means to justify an intervention and offer aid or protection to civilians and vulnerable groups has been brought under serious scrutiny, especially in international law. While the idea of humanitarian intervention is, in principle, one that advocates for a more politically conscious aid with a broader goal of making such aid to include both military and diplomatic measures that protect civilians and build platform for strategic long-term conflict-resolution mechanisms, 4 the construction and narratives in contemporary populist political discourse has incidentally disrupted these guiding principles, resulting in convoluted and upsetting inaccuracies in accounts and statements relating to protection of civilians and humanitarianism. Hence, the now growing idea of liberal peace building which is also one that will continue to raise many questions in law and politics. The Doctrine of Liberal Peace Building. The principle of liberal peace building revolves around the notion that international peace and individual rights are concepts that can best be achieved through broad-based frameworks whereby democratic states take a lead in 1 Gade, E. K. (2010). Defining the Non-Combatant: How do we Determine Who is Worthy of Protection in Violent Conflict?. Journal of Military Ethics, 9(3), 219-242. 2 Reeds in Glanville, L. (2013). In defense of the responsibility to protect. Journal of Religious Ethics, 41(1), 169-182. 3 Annan, K. (1999). Intervention. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 15(2), 115-125; Harff, B. (1992). Bosnia and Somalia: Strategic, Legal and Moral Dimensions of Humanitarian Intervention. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 12(3/4), 1-7; Tesón, F. R. (2006). Eight principles for humanitarian intervention. Journal of Military Ethics, 5(2), 93-113. 4 Fox, F. (2001). New humanitarianism: does it provide a moral banner for the 21st century?. Disasters, 25(4), 275-289. CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals