Human rights discourse legitimized the regime change doctrine

Evidence

In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1999, Secretary-General Kofi Annan identified a shift in the concept of sovereignty from the national to the individual. As Sungur Sarvan points out, it followed that “where a state violates human rights, the ‘international community’ has the ‘right to intervene,’ militarily if need be, in the internal affairs of that state.” This definition inaugurated the notion of “cross-border rights,” those rights that can be “defended” by an outside force. It was a short step from this notion to the policy of “regime change” pursued by the Bush administration in the first years of the twenty-first century. — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 338

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine’s genealogy — relevant to understanding how liberal interventionism underpins the moral framing of war that Morey later reads novels against. — connects to: Human-rights discourse has replaced civilizational rhetoric as war’s legitimation; Human-rights rhetoric can relocate redress authority toward imperial overseers; Humanitarian intervention doctrine evolved into a pretext for regime change — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 338 (+5 more)
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Human-rights discourse has replaced civilizational rhetoric as war’s legitimation; Human-rights rhetoric can relocate redress authority toward imperial overseers; Humanitarian intervention doctrine evolved into a pretext for regime change — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 338 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Humanitarian intervention doctrine evolved into a pretext for regime change #corroborates (0.92) — Peter Morey, Islamophobia and the Novel, 338