International responses to gross human rights violations: A comparative content analysis of Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda and Sierra Leone

This dissertation emerges out of the notion that the United Nations Security Council's Title VII interventions follow a decision making process that weighs not only on denotative and legal interpretations of threat to international peace and security but also on common triggers and frequently cited legal or moral reasoning. Thus this dissertation examines the main factors that inform the Security Council's Title VII decision-making process by comparatively analyzing its involvement in Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. The process of inquiry includes the identification of element(s) with which the Council was concerned, factors that triggered its interventions, strategies and resources used by perpetuators of violence and gross human rights violations as well as those utilized in response to such acts. Historical contexts from which actors and respondents operated and the level at which assessments and interpretations of events were reciprocated are also examined. Analysis of Security Council resolutions, Amnesty International annual reports, New York Times and London Guardian editorials and articles on violent conflicts in Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda and Sierra Leone between 1990 and 2000 suggests that the Council's primary elements of concern were the protection of state functions, diplomatic operations and regime ties. However, the Council frequently used gross human rights violations as the moral and legal basis for its Title VII decisions. The Council's elements of concern and strategies were inconsistent with the approaches utilized by Amnesty International, the New York Times and the Guardian (London). Additionally, multiple provisions in international instruments on states' internal and international rights and behaviors were exploited to sustain the violence in Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda and Sierra Leone.