This chapter explores the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) by queer and transgender people and how they have to perform particular bodily and intimate selves in the processes of seeking ART (Armuand et al., 2017; Mamo 2007, 2013). The bioprecarity of queer and transgender people is produced by the enactment of certain kinds of categorical framing (Foucault, 1977, 1990; Somerville, 1995) in the laws regulating ART. Prohibitive laws in some states are often circumvented by going abroad. This chapter therefore argues that queer and trans people’s bioprecarity also results from the intimate labour queer and transgender people have to undertake to overcome prohibitive laws and hetero- and cisnormative medical institutions as shown e.g. in studies about trans people’s experiences with ART (Armuand et al., 2017; James-Abra et al., 2015).
Queer kinship, reproductive labour and biopolitics
This chapter explores how different forms of reproductive labour create different precarities within LGBTQ parenting and kin-making in contemporary Sweden. It especially considers the precarization of biological labour in a setting where intimate labour is the foundation for kin-making and where the necessary making, gestating and breastfeeding of a child is downplayed in relation to parenthood status. Drawing on ethnographic research, the chapter also illuminates how ‘biology’ produces strong feelings, even in a kinship structure that departs from the notion of intent and intimate labour as equally shared matters. Framing queer reproduction as both a biopolitical question and a question of gender labour, the chapter then discusses how gendered and racialized ideas of parenthood and kinship are reproduced and reworked in imaginaries of LGBTQ parenthood. Contributing to critical whiteness studies, it argues that the (queer) nation is repeatedly recreated as white, while whiteness remains invisible to those who inhabit it.
This book tells the story of the emergence of the concept of crimes against humanity. It examines its origins, the ethical assumptions underpinning it, its legal and philosophical boundaries and some of the controversies connected with it. A brief historical introduction is followed by an exploration of the various meanings of the term ‘crimes against humanity’ that have been suggested; a definition is proposed linking it to the idea of basic human rights. The book looks at some problems with the boundaries of the concept, the threshold for its proper application and the related issue of humanitarian intervention. It concludes with a discussion of the prospects for the further development of crimes-against-humanity law.
This book explains how and why the European Union has started to intervene in the cultural policy sector—understood here as the public policies aimed at supporting and regulating the arts and cultural industries. It is a comprehensive account of the Communitarisation process of the cultural policy sector. Before 1992, no legal basis for EU intervention in the field of culture appeared in the Treaties. Member states were, in any case, reluctant to share their competences in a policy sector considered to be an area of national sovereignty. In such circumstances, how was the Communitarisation of the policy sector ever possible? Who were the policy actors that played a role in this process? What were their motives? And why were certain actors more influential than others?
Liberal cosmopolitanism promised a humane and progressive vision of global reform
and improvement, in contrast to the terrible utopian projects of the twentieth
century. Yet the efforts to globalise human rights and democracy through force
have subverted the liberal international order and produced a new type of
cosmopolitan dystopia, in the form of permanent war, jihadist insurrection and a
new paternalism embodied in transnational protectorates and the paradigm of
‘sovereignty as responsibility’. Cosmopolitan Dystopia explains how this came
about through the rise of humanitarian exceptionalism. The book argues that
humanitarian exceptionalism saw humanitarian emergencies as opportunities to
develop deeper forms of human solidarity that went beyond nation states, thereby
necessitating military responses to each new crisis. This in turn helped to
normalise permanent war. As the norm and exception have collapsed into each
other, the rules-based order envisioned in traditional liberal internationalism
has corroded away. Efforts to embed humanitarian exceptionalism into the
international order have undermined the classical liberal ideal of
self-determination, with the spread of protectorates and a new paternalist
legitimisation of state power in the ‘sovereignty as responsibility’
The book uses a case study of the British response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 to understand what factors motivate the decision to intervene in humanitarian crises overseas; it is primarily a study of British politics, especially under Conservative Governments, rather than a study of the genocide itself. The book begins with a review of the general literature on humanitarian intervention and a brief description of the background to the genocide. It then moves on to focus on the British response; the research uses interviews with ministers and senior civil servants and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act to explore and explain the Government’s response. It also explores in some depth the response of the British media, public, NGOs and Parliament and considers how these various actors influence government policy making. The research demonstrates that intervention only becomes likely when three factors are present: first there must be a realisation that a humanitarian crisis exists; secondly, to overcome bureaucratic inertia there must be support for intervention at the most senior levels of government; and there must be a belief that intervention will be successful. In the final chapter, the book then tests this conclusion by reviewing the British response to the contemporary crises in Libya and Syria.
When is the use of force for humanitarian purposes legitimate? The book examines this question through one of the most controversial examples of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War period: the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo. In the face of contemporary problems of legitimacy and justification, the book offers a deep engagement with developments at the intersection of Habermasian communicative ethics and International Relations. The result is a set of rigorous normative guidelines – the ‘communicative imperatives’ – intended for application in analyses of the process and legitimacy of international deliberations around the use of force. The book provides an innovative contribution to the theory of communicative ethics through which actors are able to critique and evaluate decisions to use force. The communicative ethics framework contributes a critical communicative dimension to the question of legitimacy that extends beyond the moral and legal approaches so often applied to the intervention in Kosovo. The application of the communicative imperatives reveals forms of communicative distortion which serves to contest conventional accounts of the legitimacy of the use of force in Kosovo.
This book examines the intellectual frameworks within which the case for war in Iraq has developed in the US and the UK. It analyzes the neoconservative roots of the decision to go to war. The book also analyzes the humanitarian intervention rationale that was developed in the context of the Kosovo campaign, Tony Blair's presentation of it, and the case of Iraq. It looks at the parallel processes through which the George Bush administration and Blair government constructed their cases for war, analyzing similarities and divergences in approach. The book considers the loci of the intelligence failure over Iraq, the lessons for the intelligence communities, and the degree to which the decision to go to war in Iraq represented a policy rather than an intelligence failure. It then complements the analyses of US prewar intelligence failures by analysing what post-war inquiries have revealed about the nature of the failure in the UK case. The book discusses the relationship between intelligence and policymaking. It looks at how US Congress dealt with intelligence before the war. The book also examines how the Bush administration tried to manage public opinion in support of its war policies. It then looks at the decisionmaking process of the Bush administration in the year before the war in Iraq. Finally, the book also provides excerpts from a number of speeches and documents which are key to understanding the nature of national security decisionmaking and intelligence failure.
This collection interrogates the representation of humanitarian crisis and
catastrophe, and the refraction of humanitarian intervention and action, from
the mid-twentieth century to the present, across a diverse range of media forms:
traditional and contemporary screen media (film, television and online video) as
well as newspapers, memoirs, music festivals and social media platforms (such as
Facebook, YouTube and Flickr). The book thus explores the historical, cultural
and political contexts that have shaped the mediation of humanitarian
relationships since the middle of the twentieth century. Together, the chapters
illustrate the continuities and connections, as well as the differences, which
have characterised the mediatisation of both states of emergency and acts of
amelioration. The authors reveal and explore the significant synergies between
the humanitarian enterprise, the endeavour to alleviate the suffering of
particular groups, and media representations, and their modes of addressing and
appealing to specific publics. The chapters consider the ways in which media
texts, technologies and practices reflect and shape the shifting moral,
political, ethical, rhetorical, ideological and material dimensions of
international humanitarian emergency and intervention, and have become integral
to the changing relationships between organisations, institutions, governments,
individual actors and entire sectors.
The first major post-Cold War conflict, the 1991 Gulf war, indicated how much had already changed. Saddam Hussein had enjoyed Western support in Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s, but was abruptly cast as the 'new Hitler' after his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. This book is about how the media have interpreted conflict and international intervention in the years after the Cold War. By comparing press coverage of a number of different wars and crises, it seeks to establish which have been the dominant themes in explaining the post-Cold War international order and to discover how far the patterns established prior to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks have subsequently changed. The key concern is with the legitimacy of Western intervention: the aim is to investigate the extent to which Western military action is represented in news reporting as justifiable and necessary. The book presents a study that looks at UK press coverage of six conflicts and the international response to them: two instances of 'humanitarian military intervention' (Somalia and Kosovo); two cases in which the international community was criticised for not intervening (Bosnia and Rwanda); and two post-9/11 interventions (Afghanistan and Iraq). There were a number of overlapping UN and US interventions in Somalia in the early 1990s. Operation Restore Hope was the first major instance of post-Cold War humanitarian military intervention, following the precedent set by the establishment of 'safe havens' for Iraqi Kurds and other minorities at the end of the 1991 Gulf war.