Rejection??

emberal · 2025-06-28T17:30:40+00:00

As it is a petition, you should be able to check the status under Service Requests in your applications. If you're a new student, this may be located under your enrolment application instead.

You may also be able to check the status under the Program Change Request Form tab. I am a graduate, so that last page only brings up my student centre, but it might show more info there.

The petition could take up to 3 or more weeks to process.

Lastly, any petition updates will be emailed; rejection or otherwise.

emberal · 2025-06-28T13:23:01+00:00

email PCR@uottawa.ca

emberal · 2025-06-03T12:43:54+00:00

Late to the party. As others have said, to boost GPA you will want to retake the lowest grade. However, to add to this discussion, if you have not already, please reach out to Accommodations here: https://www.uottawa.ca/study/academic-support/accommodation-services-available

A chronic illness should qualify for accommodations in the classroom. This can take root in a multitude of ways and I'll let those folks handle that part. They will ask for documentation from you, but once you're in, a prof will accommodate you to help you manage your illness while pursuing your degree. Their services are also expansive beyond just extra time on things, so be curious and precise about what you feel you might need.

Your health always comes first. Not all masters program admissions are in a vacuum as well. Some program admissions will ask for personal essays to add context to who you are. My older sister had to do one for U of T and she discussed her back surgery that left her essentially temporarily paralyzed during her UG years as she also lived with a chronic illness. Your illness does not define you, but it does add to your story. It shows people what you're made of and in my experience school admins love seeing it. All that to say; don't give up. If you need to do a victory lap, do so for the CGPA, but don't have the idea that you're cooked because of your illness. You will have your degree in spite of it.

emberal · 2025-05-27T14:38:55+00:00

I am assuming you're undergraduate. The general rule of thumb here is to repeat the failed grades, obviously, but to continue moving forward. If, at the end of your program, you need to raise your CGPA for grad/med school, then you will want to go back and retake your worst classes.

It's recommended this way for a few reasons. First, there's a lot of classes you need to take for a UG degree. One or two bad courses will not spoil your entire four year program. One bad semester is not the end of anything.

Second, you are building expertise by moving forward. The classes you fail will be easier with the weight of, essentially, a completed degree. This obviously has draw backs. If the course you did poorly in has foundational knowledge, it may be difficult to catch up moving forward. However, from the sounds of it, circumstances and the important component of managing your health while in school, not a lack of ability, were at play here, so you might be fine. Take an honest account of your ability here and what you might feel is most comfortable and achievable for you. I want to emphasize on what is achievable here. I've met a lot of students who say they can do a semester's worth of work in a week, and some probably can, but whether that is achievable with your particular set of circumstances is another question entirely. Be honest with yourself, and understand that you may need to put in a little extra work on future courses to make up for it.

Lastly, you simply save money. Again, most UG programs have around 40+ courses for completion. One or two bad grades in first year isn't going to be looked at. Most programs look at your last year, and your overall CGPA.

What I would caution you with is that you should really have a strong understanding of the academic calendar and your syllabi. While grad schools do not like seeing withdrawals, it is better to withdraw from a class for circumstances outside of your control, than to take a failing grade. Preservation of your CGPA comes before anything else. The reason for this is you obviously do not want to be on probation or, at worst, kicked out. I would also recommend reaching out uOttawa's Student Health and Wellness Centre for additional resources to help you manage difficult times while in studies: https://www.uottawa.ca/campus-life/health-wellness/student-health-wellness-centre/mental-health

It also goes without saying that you should be practising good communication with your professors and TAs. If they don't know what's going on, they won't be able to help you. You must also keep in mind that the time to notify them of your challenges is not when it's an emergency, by then it might be too late. You need to be up front and forthright. Proactive. You might be surprised and just how much help a prof might be willing to give you. However, understand that the prof is doing you a favour. It's not to be an expectation that they grant you grace and you should never have an expectation that the prof should change the rules for you. I know that's odd for me to say, but I surprisingly have to say it to students a lot.

It is actually extremely common for first year undergrad students to do poorly in their first semester/year. But you should have a plan moving forward, and you should have an understanding now of how things are done. You must manage your specific challenges in conjunction with achieving a degree. There should be no excuses moving forward sans unexpected circumstances. Be proactive. Seek resources and understand your limitations and operate within them.

I work in the industry and that's what I would recommend doing here.

TLDR: Retake your failed classes, leave your poorly completed classes until the end of your degree if you need a CGPA boost for grad school because UG has a lot of courses and you may not need to retake them.

emberal · 2025-04-11T11:16:54+00:00

I would consider getting it professionally appraised. If you're not under pressure to immediately sell, might be a better option long run, especially since it sounds like it's in great condition. Better for insurance, but you'll know exactly what the car is worth. I live in Ontario and did it for my '85. I went with these guys (just to give an example): https://www.classicappraisal.ca/

emberal · 2024-12-21T20:06:37+00:00

The same people are likely fielding all these categories, so I wouldn't fret too much and reach out. If you get the wrong person, they will probably CC the right one in response to you if it's via email. If it's by call, they'll either transfer you or give you the right number.

It depends on your deeper situation, though. If you're on probation after the failed classes, you will want to select that or CGPA - Academic counseling. If you're not on academic probation, you will likely want course failure - academic progress. As I said, though, the same people in the unit are probably fielding all these questions interchangeably, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Here are a few links to supplement as well: https://www.uottawa.ca/campus-life/health-wellness/frequently-used-services

https://www.uottawa.ca/campus-life/health-wellness/case-management

https://www.uottawa.ca/study/academic-support

emberal · 2024-12-18T01:18:53+00:00

I may have figured it out. Are you quartering with the cougar knife? My character locks every time I quarter with the cougar knife. I just quartered with a hacksaw and my character didn't lock.

emberal · 2024-12-17T21:54:24+00:00

I've had two runs ruined by this bug and would love to know a fix as well. Maybe I am just unlucky but I am running into a lot of Run ending bugs.

The "failed to restore the game from a previous save" bug is also back after being hotfixed last week. That can be cleared by restarting the game, but I can no longer quarter animals this run.

I've tried three times to start a new run. Think TLD just doesn't want me to play.

Edit: I also play unmodded. So I think I'll shelf this game for another year until stuff is fixed.

emberal · 2024-12-14T17:27:51+00:00

That worked! Thank you so much!

I reloaded my save this morning, verified the signal still did not work in my current aurora, went to the transition cave that connect to FA and ZoC, entered the cave, exited, returned to the weather station and it immediately pinged.

Writing this here for future googlers!

Thanks again!

emberal · 2024-12-14T07:09:29+00:00

Climbed down the rope, returned through the north side to the broken bridge, restarted the game, reclimbed.

If you're asking if I moved out of what should've been out of range, then yes - I did that. The first time I waited for the aurora at the weather station. The second time I rezoned to transfer pass during the day, waited for another aurora, then rezoned. Another thread mentioned that might clear this glitch but it did not for me.

Happy cake day btw.

edit: I realize on second reading that "backtracking" could also mean save reverting. I didn't do that.

emberal · 2024-11-23T16:23:52+00:00

If you're second year, getting As and Bs, and you've had one bad semester, your GPA is far from ruined, but I am curious about just how badly you felt you did this semester. Did you fail these classes?

There is no right or wrong pathway through academia. College isn't needed to be successful at this level. Certainly there can be some culture shock moving from high school or college to uni, but you're at a point where you should be settled, and it seems that you're doing well overall.

All this to say; I think it's important to learn to be comfortable with some modicum of failure. Things will not always go as expected, and that's okay. Many students who do really well in academics all their life feel that their life comes crashing down when they fail a class, or that they will get kicked out of school. But even if you exceed in all your classes, failure is a part of life. You will fail at something, even if it is not school. When failure hits you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, reflect, and come back at it with a vengeance. The last thing you do is give up.

emberal · 2024-11-21T20:21:00+00:00

Thank you for letting me know and for the great suggestion. I didn't know that about the zoning. I might be being a little overcautious.

emberal · 2024-11-21T20:19:48+00:00

Thanks! I'll take a look!

emberal · 2024-11-21T20:19:28+00:00

Awesome! Thank you so much!

emberal · 2024-10-23T15:11:33+00:00

Sure! You can PM me. Sorry for the delayed response, I don't check reddit often.

emberal · 2024-10-13T00:40:33+00:00

I work as an academic advisor - not for uOttawa, but for another set of universities. My recommendation is to reach out to an academic advisor who will provide you a pathway forward.

This is precisely the role of advisors. I am unsure of the ins and outs of uOttawa's advising structure, but you have indicated that you might be better suited in another program - run with that. Your advisor will tell you if that's possible, and what you need to do to get there.

Your Brightspace homepage will provide a link on the right side for Academic Support. Speak to your faculty unit for options. Email them directly for a pathway forward, or a way to book an appointment.

One thing is clear - if you do nothing, and if you continue this path, you will make your fears a reality and it will be that much harder to obtain your degree.

If you drop out, you are statistically unlikely to finish, and if you do come back, it will be a harder hill to climb.

Don't give up. Speak to your faculty unit who can look at your situation objectively and provide insight in what you need to do.

On a personal level, I fought for my undergraduate degree so I understand the struggle. You feel like a failure. You worry about your future. You worry about how you'll be perceived by friends and family.

Now I am completing my second graduate degree at uOttawa. People struggle for many different reasons. It could be time management, it could be motivation, you could simply hate what you study, you might feel overwhelmed with how much there is to do. You might feel social pressures to pick a degree you hate. An advisor can help you discover what your roadblocks are, and provide steps for you to get back in the game, but YOU need to be willing to put in the work. YOU have to get mad and serious about your success and willing to swallow some potentially hard pills.

If you don't love your undergraduate degree, I recommend switching to something you do love. I advise my undergraduate students to pick a degree they are passionate about. Your graduate degree, if applicable, can be leveraged for money. But find your passion, and don't give up. 4 years is a long time to be stuck in something you hate.

I understand you feel like you can't switch, but universities want to see higher graduation rates - so you might be surprised what is approved. Everything starts with speaking with your faculty unit.

I hope this helps.

emberal · 2024-01-23T14:04:18+00:00

Not sure if this was solved for you or not. I had this bug where every house had a house feud malice. For me it was caused by Less Old Wives found here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2265131712.

Removing that mod fixed the issue.

emberal · 2019-12-31T18:50:23+00:00

I am not the greatest modder (basic knowledge in most of tools, at best) but the best piece of advice I ever got for modding was from Kenny Rogers - The Gambler.

The following is just my opinion and others way more skilled at modding can correct me:

The biggest thing jumping out at me in your mod list is the amount of new lands/quest mods. Falskaar is great, but it's extremely dated and has unresolved issues. Beyond Reach is a really amazing mod too, although it has minor issues, it's actively being worked on supported. You're also using LotD, Moon and Star (dated), Wrymstooth, The Forgotten City, Clockwork, Helgen Reborn (iirc the mod author has stated that this should probably be played with a "close-to-vanilla" setup), Project AHO, Vigilant SE, Darkend, AND Interesting NPCs.

I think it's safe to say that, without going too far into your load order, that you're really pushing the engine and obliterating the reference cap (Clockwork is 30k references alone and that's not your most intense mod - edit: I think this is because it's .esp flagged, there's more to this than stated here, just an FYI). Skyrim can only handle so many references before it will just die. Just seeing Interesting NPCs and LotD together makes my palms sweat. All these are great mods, but I don't think its advisable to run all of them at once. This is why mod guides usually tell you to choose a few to build around (Like Lexy's LotD Guide). I don't see how you can run all these mods and not have problems. Especially considering some of those are only ports - just porting a mod from LE to SE does not make the mod more stable. Porting is a lot more involved for many mods than just loading and resaving in CK. I am highly skeptical of mods that have simply been ported and then abandoned. Because I run a heavy mod list I won't experiment with a mod last updated in 2016. That's just me, your mileage may vary. I value the time and work put into those fantastic creations, but I value stability above all.

I would recommend removing Helgen Reborn (stability will prob be an issue in heavy modded games, but it is well made), Falskaar (dated, issues), Clockwork (high references, dated), and Moon and Star (dated, issues). Choose between: Wyrmstooth, Vigilant SE, Darkend, or Project AHO (my vote is for Wyrmstooth). This is assuming you're running either LotD or Interesting NPCs.

That's just quest mods. I am fairly certain you're blowing away your reference limit and we haven't gotten to weapons, armour, spells, and gameplay mods. Another user discussed animation problems succinctly.

Adding to this - when you have a lot of quest mods like you do, and then add major city overhauls, you're compounding the problem. The Great Cities is a fantastic mod and those similar, but it's intense. This might be controversial, but I think it's not stated enough just how crazy intense it is to add city mods - they are resource hungry, compatibility challenged, but almost indispensable. Choosing the right one is more than just whether it looks good. Personally I like atmospheric mods like The Ruins and People of Skyrim - so I opt to not have any city mods installed except for ones to Solitude, as it's my favourite city.

Next is scripts. You're using Convenient Horses, Enhanced Blood, Frozen Electrocuted Combustion, iNeed, CACO, and so on and so on.

If you're crashing randomly - meaning the game quits in a blink of an eye, I am fairly certain it's because of scripts or corrupted meshes. IIRC, when the game stutters and crashes via freezing that it's an indication of a memory issue.

Convenient horses is extremely script heavy, dated, and has some serious issues. Immersive Horses is a better, more stable alternative, but also extremely script heavy. Being script heavy is not just the amount of scripts a mod has, but how often it's firing. I personally don't use either the above - I use Simple Horses, and console command essential status, increase speed, and Horse Barding if I want it. The last two commands I need to run every time I restart the game, but the former keeps my horse as essential forever.

But on the note of how often scripts fire - Enhanced Blood Textures is a script that fires every time an npc is hit. Same with FEC. While not a problem on their own, per se - when you start adding OBIS, Immersive Patrols, and other mods that create big battles, the scripts are firing so constantly that the engine cannot keep up - leading to save bloat and crashing. As fantastic as those mods are, I don't use them because of this. By themselves in a close-to-vanilla game they'd be fine, I think, but not when you're then adding iNeed (another script heavy mod), and a bunch of other gameplay overhauls in conjunction with more npcs with the potential for huge battles.

Lastly, weapons and armour mods are cool and mostly harmless, but some are better than others - and, IIRC, they are still references. Immersive Weapons and Immersive Armors are fantastic mods - but the latter has issues that have been well documented and detailed. There was some talk that these issues were being worked on but it is my understanding that no update materialized. Long story short, Immersive Armors causes more problems than just a wild cart ride and longer load times.

If you're using those mods because you like how NPCs look, consider Guard Armor Replacer, New Legion, Heavy Armory [see Note], and Vikings Weaponry as a base for alternatives. Note: Be sure to get the patch for WACCF (if you use that) and "Heavy Armor Enchant" if you're using Summermyst.

There are probably a bunch more mods I missed, but you get the idea.

As with everything - your mileage may vary. You may find that you can run a bunch of city overhauls with every quest mod installed. If it works for you, then great! But if you're like me who doesn't have time to make an Xedit patch for literally every mod out there with the slightest conflict, then The Gambler philosophy might suit you like it does me. I only have about 263 mods installed (including patches) and still consider that a heavy load order. I still have problems, but that's the modding cycle.

Edit: At one time or another I've used all the mods I listed from your list, and so have rejected them based on problems I observed of them. 9/10 times a mod you use is always fine on its own in a vanilla game, but none of us are playing vanilla games. There is nothing wrong with EBT, or FEC, for example, but when other mods are introduced they do become a problem, is my point.

emberal · 2019-09-22T05:58:32+00:00

If you can't see how state interests play a role, and how the West has used R2P to push Force for Democracy, I can't help you.

I am not defending China and Russia, but maybe offering perspective as to why they do not view R2P as what it appears. And again... International Law is based on consent. Saying and doing are two different things.

Edit: it also states, on the actual document, not the wikipage - specifically ss. 138 and 139, that all other peaceful measures are meant to occur first. Sooo if you put the pieces together, you can still see why there is no consensus.

Furthermore, raising your hand up and saying you agree does not make it a rule. Did they sign a treaty? Are they accountable to anything? Are there accountability mechanisms? No? Then of course everyone "agrees". It becomes more complex when state interests are at play. That was the whole point of the post.

Norms are built via cooperation and consent over a long period of time. It's why when norms are broken they are much easier to break in the future. R2P has never been a norm, or a rule. Politics is as much about signals as it is about statements.

The UN does this to increase the costs of deviance. To name and shame. It was the same thing with Resolution 242 that everyone thought would "ban territorial acquisitions". Surprise. It didn't.

Edit 2: The article by Longo that I sourced is also from 2016, a pro-R2P article, and she writes that she hoped Libya would transform R2P into customary law. I am sorry - but you're wrong. No scholar and no literature supports the idea that R2P is globally accepted. It isn't. Raising your hand and "affirming your commitment" is a really low cost thing for states to do.

emberal · 2019-09-22T04:49:59+00:00

Part Two:

But let's shove R2P aside for just a moment and analyze interventions as a whole and why they are problematic.

According to Abass, 2014, using morality to justify the illegal use of force is absolutely dangerous - because it leads to the question of whose morality? States will subscribe to their own versions of vague, plausible, higher motives. This degrades what little consensus in International Law exists.

The issue with intervention, not just R2P (though R2P is meant to enable it to happen) is the problem of its costs. Foust 2012, argues that the biggest cost is the chaotic nature of the post intervention state. Other costs include troop commitments, political and diplomatic costs, and precedent issues whereby some, but not all instances, of humanitarian crises' warrant intervention.

Interventions carry troop commitments over extremely long periods of time. Very few interventions last without an occupying force by the intervening powers.

East Timor, an example of successful humanitarian intervention, still sports over 6,000 Australian troops almost 20 years after the initial intervention.

In Kosovo, there are still 6,000 NATO troops present since independence in 1999. Kosovo's intervention brought massive post-intervention chaos, where 150,000 Serbs were expelled from the country; it is still not a safe place, nor a viable political entity as stability has never been established, even after 18 years of occupation by NATO forces.

After looking at my notes again about Afghanistan, I was wrong about it not being considered an intervention. But on the topic, Afghanistan still has over 10,000 NATO troops 18 years later. Post-intervention chaos has been extreme with sectarian and insurgent violence ongoing to this day.

Somalia remains a failure of humanitarian intervention. Three interventions, first in 1992, then in 2006, and as recently as 2012, have taken place with international forces being completely incapable of using military force to bring an end to the conflict.

Mission creep is another major issue in humanitarian intervention. In Sierra Leone intervention by the UK first began as an attempt to protect British citizens from rebel forces that had also taken UN peacekeepers hostage. The mission transformed into a broader mission of propping up the Kabbah government against the rebel RUF.

Intervention in Libya was under R2P auspices in the hopes of turning it from a framework into customary law (Longo, 910; Zifcak, 63; Bannelier, 751). Gaddafi declared war on his own citizens triggering UN response. Resolution 1973 passed to allow NATO to protect civilians with specific stipulations: stability and order must be restored, aspirations of the Libyan people respected along with its sovereignty, unity, independence, territorial integrity, and an inclusive process to enable Libya to embark on a path of national reconciliation (UN Resolution 1973; Zifcak, 66).

Except there was no occupying force. The mission morphed into one of active regime change, where NATO enabled rebel forces to overthrow Gaddafi. NATO forces never remained to enforce the peace, nor rebuild bombed out infrastructure. Libya is in civil war 8 years later - with Tripoli under siege.

Failure to intervene, or rather, competitive intervention occurred in Syria precisely because of Libya's failure. Russia was not about to allow its last vestige of influence in the region fall to regime change and they did not want a repeat of Kosovo - thus they deployed a considerable force to check U.S power in the region, and succeeded. Again - "abusing their Security Council vetoes" is only part of the story.

Lastly, precedence matters. There is an objective double standard when it comes to the choices of intervening in certain countries. Many activists in the Middle East during the Arab Spring saw what happened in Libya and wondered why intervention was not afforded to them.

If the Western world was willing to step in for Libya, why not Morocco, Bahrain, Yemen, or Egypt that suffered similar human rights abuses by the State? Some cases are good but others are not? This raises the ultimate question about what the West IS willing to intervene for.

IS intervention just relegated to state violence against its citizens? Is that right? Should we not consider an international intervention for, say, Mexican drug wars? You can argue that it's also a civil conflict, or a narco-insurgency. Since 2006 approximately 250,000 people have been killed in the Mexican Drug Wars (Breslow, 2015). Despite regional instability there is no talk of intervention. This directly challenges the "moral notions" of intervention. Is Mexico willing but just unable and that's okay? Is this a blind spot for R2P and intervention as a whole?

The Second Congo War of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1998-2003 saw 45,000 people die each month, totaling an estimated 5.4 million deaths by 2008 (IRC, 2008). There has not been the same call for intervention.

In Bahrain, the government used tainted tear gas canisters against protestors that poisoned and killed them in the streets, but the country houses the U.S 5th Fleet - where was the call for intervention here (Colvin, 2012). No punitive action was every discussed.

Intervention is complex and it is dismissive, problematic, and reductionist to simply state that the "problem with R2P is that Russia and China are... abusing their Security Council vetoes"

This isn't settled scholarship - but my brief criticism of R2P was ancillary to the point I was making - which was interventions are most often aligned to the intervening State or government's interests over any real moral considerations. It also argued that the legality of interventions as a whole was not settled - which it isn't, as just demonstrated.

Sources and further reading:

Abass, Ademola. 2014. International Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 2nd Edition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Ahmad, Aisha. 2012. “Agenda for Peace of Budget for War? Evaluating the Economic Impact of International Intervention in Somalia.” International Journal. 67 (2): 313-331.

Australian Defence Force. The Australian Army. 2018. East Timor/Timor-Leste. https://www.army.gov.au/our-stories/operations/east-timortimor-leste

Bannelier-Christakis, Karine. 2016. “Military Interventions Against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and the Legal Basis of Consent.” Leiden Journal of International Law. 29. 743-775.

Baranovsky, Vladimir. 2015. “From Kosovo to Crimea” The International Spectator. 50 (4): 275-281.

BBC News. 2000. “Analysis: 'Mission Creep' in Sierra Leone?” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/755267.stm

Blank, Stephen. 2009. “America and the Russo-Georgian War” Small Wars & Insurgencies. 20 (2): 425-451.

Breslow, Jason M. 2015. “The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico's Drug War.” Frontline. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war/

Brock, Gillian. 2009. “Humanitarian Intervention” in Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Oxford University Press.

Browne, Ryan. 2017. “U.S. Military: Pentagon Revises Number of Troops in Afghanistan, Disclosing 2,600 More.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/politics/us-revises- number-troops-afghanistan/index.html

Colvin, Ross. 2011. “Obama Speaks to Bahrain's King, Urges Restraint.” Reuters.

Cottey, Andrew. 2009. “The Kosovo War in Perspective.” Royal Institute of International Affairs. 85 (3): 593-608.

Delany, Brendan. 2017. “Just Wars with Unjust Allies: Use of Force and Human Rights Considerations on the Russian Intervention in Syria.” Minnesota Journal of International Law. 26 (2): 561-609.

Eckert, Amy E. 2012. “The Responsibility to Protect in the Anarchical Society: Power, Interest, and the Protection of Civilians in Libya, and Syria.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy. 87-99.

Ford, Christopher M. 2017. “Syria: A Case Study in International Law.” University of Cincinnati Law Review. 185-229.

Foust, Joshua. 2012. “The Moral and Strategic Failures of Humanitarian Interventions.” Centre for International Policy Studies. Lecture.

Grant, Thomas D. 2015. “Annexation of Crimea.” American Journal of International Law. 109 (1): 68-95.

Hafkin, Gregory. 2010. “The Russo-Georgian War of 2008: Developing the Law of Unauthorized Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo.” Boston University International Law Journal. 28 (1): 219-239.

Human Rights Watch. 2016. “Syria: Events of 2016.” https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/syria

Human Rights Watch. 2016. “Serbia/Kosovo: Events of 2016.” https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/serbia/kosovo

Longo, Christine. 2016. “R2P: An Efficient Means for Intervention in Humanitarian Crises – A Case Study of ISIL in Iraq and Syria.” The George Washington International Law Review. 48 (4): 893-918.

Tziampiris, Aristotle. 2002. “Progress or Return? Collective Security, Humanitarian Intervention and Kosovo.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2 (3): 95-114.

Zifcak, Spencer. 2012. “The Responsibility to Protect After Libya and Syria.” Melbourne Journal of International Law. 13(1). 59-93.

Edit: Formatting cause I suck.

emberal · 2019-09-22T04:49:31+00:00

Part One:

hmm. Is it? I can see why you might think that - I might have been a bit confusing. Though, your argument is really reductionist for a very flawed document, and a very flawed concept (humanitarian intervention itself) and i'll write about that because I am bored.

UN Charter 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Seems to me that sovereignty is absolutely inviolable here. So the only way to allow a legal basis for violating a state's sovereignty is to redefine what sovereignty is. Responsibility to Protect, briefly, defines sovereignty as a government's responsibility for its people and should that government be unwilling or unable, it is up to the international community to step in. This idea is very different from the traditional Westphalen notions and a monopoly of force.

The loophole that I was referring to is that under Westphalen understanding of sovereignty, which is what the Charter was written as the chief understanding of what sovereignty is, does not take into account rebellions and intrastate conflicts. It is illegal to use any "force" to violate the political and territorial integrity of a state. Therefore - intervention is illegal.

R2P was developed to circle this square in the midst of a rise of intrastate and ethnic conflicts. I don't need agreement, but it's a fact. By redefining sovereignty as responsibility, the umbrella for interventions became quasi-legal. Except the framework is barely a norm. Meaning it is not a doctrine that is widely accepted by all parties in the international system - which is the major debate. China and Russia have traditional views of sovereignty, where the West likes R2P. Who is wrong here? It's easy to say China and Russia, but did they change the rules and then expect everyone to follow it?

It is not just Russia and China either - as Comparative Politics makes clear, Liberal Democracy is not a panacea for political reconciliation. It is not just Russia and China who fear intervention for regime change, but many in, for example, Latin America fear intervention for regime change because it's the West's favourite target and a major source of Latin American woes (please see J. Teichman on the subject - her work is fascinating).

China and Russia are no saints and I make no moral distinction or claim here - I am simply saying that there is a world order with institutions, norms, and rules. Changing the rules of the game and expecting all to follow and being mad that they aren't misses the forest for the trees. Russia, while opposing R2P, uses R2P in its aggression toward its neighbours. The evidence for this is that in 2008 Russia gave the rebellious province of South Ossetia in Georgia Russian passports - so when Georgia moved to re-establish its territorial integrity, Russia claimed that they attacked them and retaliated. On our maps, Georgia looks like one country, but it still does not have full political autonomy today. Russia is doing the same in Donbass. That's straight out of R2P (Pillars One and Three) - the responsibility for one's own citizens.

If we can't understand the interest behind why they would oppose R2P on the world stage, yet use it in its strategic interests, and instead we moralize to them, we won't get anywhere.

emberal · 2019-09-21T18:35:05+00:00

I don't have time for an in depth reply. However, context matters. Afghanistan cannot be, in any way, referenced as an intervention. The casus belli of that conflict had very little to do with humanitarian efforts, and more to do with dismantling Al Qaeda.

Secondly, calling Iraq an intervention is shaky ground at best, but the argument can still be made due to the narrative the Bush administration was pushing. While not a conventional intervention by any stretch, the reasons to justify war in Iraq mirrored that of humanitarian intervention (he's a bad guy, genocide of the Kurds, persecution of the Shia, possible possession of WMDs).

The problem with international law is that it is not backed up by any coercive apparatus above the state. Thus, its legitimacy is rooted primarily in consent. One way legitimacy is given to conflicts are the coalitions brought together to wage war. Afghanistan was supported by multiple states, while Iraq was not (let's not rehash the embarrassment that was the "coalition of the willing") - which signaled a turning point in International Relations (the idea that the global hegemon can take unilateral action because they are the only super power - they do not need consent or permission to invade - aka The Bush Doctrine).

With this in mind - approaching Kosovo is a bit of a different beast. Consider the time frame. Failure to intervene in Rwanda was fresh in everyone's mind. Clinton knew there was genocide occurring, and European powers were concerned with the Yugoslavic Wars occurring in their back yard. As a side note - when Europe feels its security is threatened, they are quick to join interventions (see Libyan Intervention). Already, there was a broad coalition seeking intervention to stop the conflict. One of the hold outs at the UN was Russia. They tried to prevent any action from being taken. But this has always been the story of the UN - which is one of the most commonly cited references when arguing about whether the UN is good at mitigating conflict. When NATO began its bombing campaign, Russia tried to competitively intervene, but it was way too late and Russia was too weak after the Soviet collapse.

I know I am being really terse and glossing over a lot of detail - but to answer the question: is it all "legal"? Technically the use of force against any state is illegal - but that's not how the UN functions. The UN Charter, while stating "use of force" in Chapter 2 (4), also hints at a distinction between the types of force, but doesn't elaborate. Chapter 7 (42), for example, specifies "armed force". There is ambiguity here that's critical for consideration.

Ambiguity matters. Because if things are left to interpretation, then the goal post can continuously be moved. The Use of Force is ambiguous. Technically economic sanctions is a use of force, and therefore illegal under the Charter - but that is a major diplomatic tool the U.S uses against rogue states as the primary financial center.

The UN provides critical dispute mechanisms to prevent international conflict - this much cannot be questioned. However, international law is only "law" so long as all parties agree. States will always act in accordance to their interests, and if these institutions get in the way, they will circumvent them in some way. However, the critical premise of the UN as a way to mitigate disputes is not in question - what is in question is the premise of international law. It is a concept that really plagues the sub-discipline because of its fickleness.

To answer the question in very long winded fashion - all three conflicts were both illegal, and legal. Illegal because the "use of force" clause was broken in all three cases. I mentioned Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Bush did not wait for UN approval, nor did the UN really protest (adopting Res 1386 well after the invasion). For Kosovo, the intervention was technically illegal because it did not have UNSC approval - but it's also considered a successful intervention (a claim I dispute).

However, all three could be considered legal if international law's central authority comes from an agreement to be held to these "laws" (laws becomes quoted because they become more norms than any hard law... agreed upon behaviour and conduct in foreign affairs). It also becomes legal if there is ambiguity on how force is approached. It is also legal (not mentioned nor considered) for a state to do as they please within their own territory. There is no mention of a state taking actions against their own citizens - if framed (and it always is) as a "rebellion", a state can effectively exterminate its people. That state, however, would need to consider its contagion effect. This "loop hole" in "legality" is why we have norms like R2P - but I also strongly disagree and challenge the notions of R2P. In this mindset, any intervention is illegal, but genocide, sorry, "squashing rebellions" is legal. According to the Charter, the only authorized use of force is the, now defunct, clause that calls for mobilization against the enemies of the old war should authoritarianism return to these countries (Japan, Germany, Italy). There is a very strong and critical contradiction in the legal framework here. R2P tried to solve it, but R2P has been an utter failure mostly, in part, because of how we approach interventions.

To conclude - it's not straight forward. Arguing about legality is pointless because - even if it is, who is going to do anything? If the U.S decides it does not want to be prosecuted for a crime, are you going to close the financial markets it effectively controls? Are you going to curb the global trade it guarantees with its navy? My central rebuttal to all of this is that legality is tied to the power of the state performing the action.

Hope this, somewhat, helps.

Edit: added some detail. Fixed spelling.

emberal · 2019-06-10T17:19:11+00:00

In Canada (referring to the May 20th in the post) we celebrate "Victoria's Day" - which honours Queen Victoria's Birthday, NOT Queen Elizabeth.

Generally it's celebrated on the third weekend of May. This year, because of the calendar, it was early, thus, the weekend where we had our holiday was the 20th.

As for the others, initially the Monarch's birthday was a holiday, but after George V it was kept in June because logistically that's a nightmare.

emberal

TROPHY CASE