Introducing amine functionalities on a poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) surface: Comparing the use of ammonia plasma treatment and ethylenediamine aminolysis

Amine functionalities were introduced onto the surface of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) films by applying radio frequency ammonia plasma treatment and wet ethylenediamine treatment. The modified surfaces were characterized by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) for chemical composition and Raman microspectroscopy for the spatial distribution of the chemical moieties. The relative amount of amine functionalities introduced onto the PHBV surface was determined by exposing the treated films to the vapor of trifluoromethylbenzaldehyde (TFBA) prior to XPS analysis. The highest amount of amino groups on the PHBV surface could be introduced by use of ammonia plasma at short treatment times of 5 and 10 s, but no effect of plasma power within the range of 2.5-20 W was observed. Ethylenediamine treatment yielded fewer surface amino groups, and in addition an increase in crystallinity as well as degradation of PHBV was evident from Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Raman maps showed that the coverage of amino groups on the PHBV surfaces was patchy with large areas having no amine functionalities.

Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit

At the 2005 World Summit, the world's leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world's most threatened people. The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world's states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN's High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around intervention in future cases.