English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been said that Resolution 688 (1991) established a "right to interfere" for humanitarian reasons. This right - reference was even made to a "duty of humanitarian interference" - would allow third-party states to take the initiative of committing acts of humanitarian intervention on behalf of minorities subjected to ill treatment by the authorities of their country. Resolution 688 (1991), however, does not establish this right. Although the Security Council recognized itself as being competent to intervene, it did so because it had succeeded in identifying a threat to peace. Furthermore, although the United States, France, and Great Britain intervened, they were able to do so because they had breathed new life into humanitarian-motivated intervention by giving it the form of a sanction-intervention

La résolution 688 (1991) du Conseil de Sécurité : quel devoir d'ingérence?