Topic: The United Nations and the Management of Humanitarian Crisis Risks: An Analysis Based on the Contractualist Philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

Öz

This article is a sociology of international law analysis that aims to understand and better assess the application of the United Nations Charter regarding the management of humanitarian crisis risks, on the basis of the logic that underpins the creation, structuring and functioning of the United Nations. By confronting this logic with the Hobbesian and Lockean contractualist philosophies, this article notices its identification to these philosophies, with a Hobbesian predominance. Consequently, the results of the United Nations efforts with regard to the management of humanitarian crisis risks are considerable but are not sufficient to meet the problem of perpetual insecurity for all members of international society. The answers to the problem of insecurity theorized by Hobbes and Locke, although valuable, are limited in their conception of human nature, particularly its ontological individualism. It is from the option for an orientation of this one that result their respective models of political formations which do not make it possible to curb the insecurity under an identity basis that persists in the case of the United Nations mission regarding the management of humanitarian crisis risks. Thus, another orientation of that individualism, especially towards the sense of an ontological identification of Men could have reinforced these solutions, not only on a purely ethical basis, but also on the concrete evidence that the pursuit of security of some to the detriment of others, on a discriminatory identity basis is the main factor of insecurity for all. So for better results from the commitment of crisis risks management, the United Nations have to address this major issue.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• United Nations,Thomas Hobbes,John Locke,Humanitarian Crisis,Contractualism

Kaynakça

1. ABEL D., Theories of Human Nature: Classical and contemporary readings. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1992;
2. AÏT ABDELMALEK A. « Mutations identitaires et complexité du lien social : approche sociologique de l’intégration et de l’exclusion » Nouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales : revue internationale de systémique complexe et d’études relationnelles, vol. 5, n° 1, 2009, pp. 31-49
3. ANNAN K. “In greater freedom: development, security and respect for human rights for all”, (I. “Living free from need” II. “Living free from fear”, “Living in dignity”, IV “Strengthening the UN”, march 2005
4. BERGER, P.L. LUCKMANN, TH. The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Doubleday, 1966
5. BETTATI, M. « Du droit d’ingérence à la responsabilité de protéger », Outre-Terre 3/2007, n° 20, pp. 381 – 389 BLUNT C. (dir.) Libya : examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options, House of Commons, Foreign affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2016-2017, 14 September 2016
6. BOOTH K. and WHEELER, N. J. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2008), Conclusion;
7. BLOOM W., Personal Identity, National Identity, and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 CARLYLE, Th. The French Revolution, A History, Modern Library, May 14, 2002
8. CHILDERS, E. Symposium on The United Nations at Fifty: Creating a More Democratic and Effective UN, Hesburgh Centre for International Studies, University of Notre Dame Conference December 2, 1994

9. CHEVALLIER, J. « Etat de droit et relations internationales » in Réflexions sur la société internationale, Etudes, Annuaire français de relations internationales, volume VII, 2006, pp. 4-17
10. CHENET F. X., KANT, Philosophie pratique, Métaphysique des mœurs, Critique de la raison pratique, Philopsis éditions numériques, 2008 CORTEN, O. « La sécurité collective, un rêve contrarié », Le monde diplomatique, n°618, septembre 2005
11. CORTEN, O. KLEIN, P. « L’autorisation de recourir à la force à des fins humanitaires: droit d’inge»rence ou retour aux sources »? Journal Européen de Droit Int
12. ernational, n° 4, 1993, pp. 506-533 COURNARI, L. Aristote, Commentaire du livre IV des Politiques, Philopsis: Revue numérique, http://www. philopsis.fr, HARDIN, R. “Hobbesian political order”, Political theory, n°19, 1991, pp. 156-180
13. HARDIN R. “Law and social order”, Philosophical issues, Social, political and legal philosophy, n°11, 2001; pp. 65-81 HOBBES, Th. Le Citoyen. Paris : Flammarion, 1982
14. HOGG, M. ABRAMS D. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes, London: Routledge, 1988; JENKINS, R. Social Identity, London: Routledge, 1996
15. KIMOON, B. Reform Under Ban Ki-moon: A Stronger United Nations for a Better World, United Nations General Assembly Records, 2008. http://www.un.org/reform/
16. LEMAN-LANGLOIS, S. « Les buts du terrorisme », in LEMAN-LANGLOIS S. et BRODEUR, J.P. Terrorisme et antiterrorisme au Canada, Montréal : Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2009, pp. 38-57
17. LOCKE J., Traité du gouvernement civil. Paris: Flammarion, 1992; LOCKE J. Traité du Gouvernement civil (1690), Traduction française de David Mazel en 1795 à partir de la 5e édition de Londres publiée en 1728 LOPTSON P., Theories of human nature, Peterborough: broadview, 3rd ed. 2006 Topic: The United Nations and the Management of Humanitarian Crisis Risks: An Analysis Based on the Contractualist Philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke 291 MARTRES, J.-L. « De la nécessité d’une théorie des relations internationales ou l’illusion paradigmatique », in M. BERGES (dir), Penser les relations internationales, Collection: Pouvoirs comparés, Paris: L’Harmattan, McSWEENEY, Security, Identity and Interest. A sociology of international relations, Cambridge University Press, 1999
18. NED LEBOW, R. The Tragic Vision of Politics. Ethics, Interests and Orders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 NIETZSCHE, F. La volonté de puissance, 2 tomes, coll. «tel», Gallimard, Paris, 1995
19. NOVOSSELOFF, A. «  L’élargissement du Conseil de sécurité  : enjeux et perspectives  »,  Relations internationales 4/2006, n° 128, pp. 3-14
20. PALLADINI, F. “Pufendorf disciple of Hobbes: The nature of man and the state of nature, The doctrine of socialitas”, History of European Ideas, n°34, 2008, pp. 26-60;
21. REVET, S. « «Vivre dans un monde plus sûr» », Cultures & Conflits, n°75, Tous les numéros, Crises et organisations internationales, pp. 33-51
22. S. REVET, « Les organisations internationales et la gestion des risques et des catastrophes « naturelles », in Les Etudes du CERI, n°157, Septembre 2009, 1-30 RIOUX, J.F. (Sous la direction de) La sécurité humaine, une nouvelle conception des relations internationales, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001
23. RIOUX, J.-F. KEENES E. LEGARE, G. « Le néo-réalisme ou la formulation du paradigme hégémonique en relations internationales», Études internationales, vol. 19, n° 1, 1988, pp. 72-74 RUSSELL, B. “Hobbes’s Leviathan” CHAPTER VIII, A history of western philosophy and its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 545-557
24. SILVA TAROUCA (de), A. « L’idée d’ordre dans la philosophie de saint Thomas d’Aquin ». In: Revue néoscolastique de philosophie. 40e année, Deuxième série, n°55, 1937. pp. 341-384
25. SUR, S. « Le conseil de sécurité : blocage, renouveau et avenir », Pouvoirs 2/2004, n° 109, p. 61-74
26. TALIAFERRO, J. W. “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”, International Security, Vol.25, no.3: 128-161