Ämnet för min C-uppsats handlar om diskussionen om vad som kan ...

The non-intervention in other state’s internal affairs did, however, presume that all states respectthe moral values and internally behave accordingly. 56 Barnett identifies this behaviour as “a gapbetween empathy and action, between knowledge and denial.” 57 Nevertheless, the constantincreasing globalisation of both economics and politics suggest that this traditional view must bereplaced with one more adapted to global responsibility in securing global stability. 58 Lookingback to the first international security organisation, the League of Nations, this behaviour will betraced in the discussions regarding the Armenian massacres, concerning whether or not a foreignstate had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Turkey, and how “morallysane” Turkey was depicted as in the reports of the Swedish representatives.Taking into account the above mentioned role of the bystander, it is safe to assert that thebystander is always a part of the dynamics of the genocide and therefore, to some extent, alsoresponsible for the course of events. But what can the bystander do? What alternatives does aforeign state or the world community have for intervention? What amount or kind of power isneeded for such an intervention? It is quite clear that in order to answer the main question, oneshould consider a complex mixture of several different factors in every specific case.Research indicates that bystanders, even if they can not halt a genocide, can nevertheless exertsome influence. However, it is the silence of the bystander which inflicts the main harm,signalling the perpetrator that no one will intervene. Ervin Staub argues:We cannot expect bystanders to sacrifice their lives for others. But we can expect individuals,groups, and nations to act early along a continuum of destruction, when the danger to themselvesis limited, and the potential exists for inhibiting the evolution of increasing destructiveness. 59In addition to governments, non-governmental organisations, institutions and companies canalso exhort pressure on the perpetrator in order to stop or reduce the ongoing massacres and actsof cruelty. However, it seems that these organisations and institutions behave quite in theopposite manner: banks and other business, instead of using their contacts to exert pressure uponthe perpetrator, actually move to profit from the situation, which could further encourage theperpetrator. 60Lack of knowledge and intelligence information is one the most important factors, andexcuses, used by the bystanders to be acquitted from accusations of passivity and indifference.But research indicates that most often the massacres and the annihilation, even though somewhatdelayed, are known to the outside world and still the bystanders choose either to pretend thatthey are unaware or simply ignore the news. Moral duties and pursuing justice internationallysimply, quite obviously and naturally, fall short of in comparison to self-preservation and national56 Mansbach and Wilmer, 2001, p. 63. Also see Simpson, 1995, p. 10; Staub, Oxford, 2002, p. 26.57 Barnett, 2000, p. 58.58 Shaw, 1994, p. 187-189. Also see Campbell, 2005, p. 153-154.59 Staub, Oxford, 2002, p. 27-28, 35-36. Also see Grünfeld and Huijboom, 2007, p. 255.60 Barnett, 2000, p. 53; Staub, Oxford, 2002, p.492-493.16