Responsibility to protect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supercarpenter (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 11 April 2011 (→‎Instances: expanded the timeframe for the DRC ref, added Gaza). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The responsibility to protect (RtoP or R2P) is a norm or set of principles based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.[1] The responsibility to protect can be thought of as having three parts.

  1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
  2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
  3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.[2]

In the international community RtoP is a norm, not a law. RtoP provides a framework for using tools that already exist (like mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VI powers) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the operationalization of RtoP. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.

Conception of RtoP

Following the genocide in Rwanda and the international community’s failure to intervene, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the question, when does the international community intervene for the sake of protecting populations?

The Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in September 2000. In December 2001, the ICISS released its report, The Responsibility to Protect. Building on the idea that sovereignty is a responsibility, the report outlined that the international community has the responsibility to prevent mass atrocities with economic, political, and social measures, to react to current crises by diplomatic engagement, more coercive actions, and military intervention as a last resort, and to rebuild by bringing security and justice to the victim population and by finding the root cause of the mass atrocities.[3]

The African Union pioneered the concept that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in crisis situations if the State is failing to protect its population. In the founding charter in 2005, African nations declared that the "protection of human and peoples rights" would be a principal objective of the AU and that the Union had the right "to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity."[4] The AU also adopted the Ezulwini Consensus in 2005, which welcomed RtoP as a tool for the prevention of mass atrocities.[5]

RtoP in the United Nations

At the 2005 World Summit, Member States included RtoP in the Outcome Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and 139. These paragraphs gave final language to the scope of RtoP (i.e. it applies to the four crimes only) and to whom the responsibility actually falls (i.e. nations first, regional and international communities second).

Paragraphs 138 and 139 state:

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

— 2005 World Summit Outcome Document.[2]

In April 2006, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 in resolution (S/RES/1674), thereby formalizing their support for the norm.[6] The next major advancement in RtoP came in January 2009, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a report called Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. This report argued for the implementation of RtoP and outlined the three principles of RtoP.

1. Principle One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).

2. Principle Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities and to assisting those, which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.[7]

This report led eventually to a successful debate in the General Assembly in July 2009. This debate marked the first time since 2005 that the General Assembly had come together to discuss RtoP. 94 Member States spoke and were generally very supportive although some important concerns were voiced. RtoP was brought center-stage during the debate, and members, having agreed upon the norm’s importance at the 2005 World Summit, spent most of the time discussing how to implement RtoP in crisis situations around the world. Some of the main priorities leaving the debate were for regional organizations like the African Union to play a strong role in implementing RtoP, to strengthen early warning mechanisms in the United Nations, and to better define the roles UN bodies would play in implementing RtoP.[8][9]

One outcome of the debate was the first RtoP resolution adopted by the General Assembly. The Resolution (A/RES/63/308) showed that the international community had taken note of the debate and not forgotten about RtoP. The text of the resolution acknowledged the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s report as well as the debate and promised to commit RtoP to further discussion in the GA.[10]

Criticism

RtoP and National Sovereignty

One of the main concerns surround RtoP is that it infringes upon national sovereignty.[11][who?][original research?] This concern is generally considered as being misplaced, and is rebutted by the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. According to the first pillar of RtoP, the state has the responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing, and according to the second pillar the international community has the responsibility to help States fulfil their responsibility. Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign. In this sense, RtoP can be understood as reinforcing sovereignty. However it is not clear who makes this decision on behalf on 'international community'. Because of this in practical terms, RtoP is perceived as a tool of western countries to justify violations of sovereignty of other countries especially in developing world, using international institutions west controls.

RtoP Scope too Narrow

The scope of RtoP is often questioned.[who?][original research?] The concern is whether RtoP should apply to more than the four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. For example, should RtoP be used to protect civilians in peril following natural disasters? In general, the consensus is that the scope of RtoP should remain narrow and well-defined. At the General Assembly debate on RtoP in July 2009, several Member States reaffirmed the original scope of RtoP and said that broadening the applicability of RtoP could diminish its effectiveness.

Use of Military Intervention

The question of military intervention under the third pillar of RtoP remains controversial.[who?][original research?] Several states have argued that RtoP should not allow the international community to intervene militarily on States, because to do so is an infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this a necessary facet of RtoP, and is necessary as a last resort to stop mass atrocities. A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific criteria should be developed to determine when the Security Council should authorize military intervention.

RtoP May Promote Humanitarian Intervention

Critics of RtoP will occasionally equate RtoP and humanitarian intervention.[who?][original research?] This is incorrect in the sense that RtoP offers a broader set of tools with which to prevent and halt mass atrocities, including capacity building, mediation, and sanctions. Intervention is the last of many options. Even when it comes to intervention, there are still a number of differences between RtoP and humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention can be applied to situations beyond mass atrocities, and it can be implemented unilaterally. Conversely, intervention under RtoP is confined to mass atrocities and is generally carried out multilaterally, thus: with the approval of the Security Council.

Selectivity in the Security Council

Another concern surrounding RtoP is that the Security Council in the UN, when deciding to which crises RtoP applies, will be selective and biased in favor of states that are economically or politically powerful( For instance in not intervening in Tchetchenie because Russia is a powerful member of the UN Security Council) [who?][original research?] This has been acknowledged as an issue of major concern, and has hindered the implementation of RtoP. Selectivity within UN bodies is a serious concern that affects every UN-implemented act, but it does not necessarily diminish the importance or legitimacy of RtoP.

In Practice

Threshold for military interventions

According to the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) Report in 2001 (which was not adopted by national governments), any form of a military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfill the following six criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention:

  1. Just Cause
  2. Right Intention
  3. Final Resort
  4. Legitimate Authority
  5. Proportional Means
  6. Reasonable Prospect

Instances

Events that have involved mass atrocities since the Cold war:

See also

References

  1. ^ Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/adviser/mandate.shtml
  2. ^ a b 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
  3. ^ Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
  4. ^ Constitutive Act of the African Union, http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/key_oau/au_act.htm
  5. ^ Ezulwini Consensus
  6. ^ "S/RES/1674: Protection of civilians in armed conflict"
  7. ^ "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect"
  8. ^ Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, The 2009 General Assembly Debate: An Assessment. Global Centre for R2P, http://globalr2p.org/media/pdf/GCR2P_General_Assembly_Debate_Assessment.pdf
  9. ^ Report on the General Assembly Plenary Debate on the Responsibility to Protect. International Coalition for RtoP, http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICRtoPGAdebate.pdf
  10. ^ A/RES/63/308 "The responsibility to protect"
  11. ^ Libya and the Soros Doctrine

Further reading

  • Baylis and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, 1997, p 394
  • Deng, Francis, Rothchild, Donald, et al. "Sovereignty as Responsibility Conflict Management in Africa". (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, September 1996). c. 290pp.
  • Downes, Paul. Melville's Benito Cereno and Humanitarian Intervention South Atlantic Quarterly. 103.2-3. Spring/Summer 2004 465-488.
  • Evans, Gareth. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All. (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, September 2008)
  • Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun. "The Responsibility to Protect" Foreign Affairs. November/December 2002.
  • Hehir, Aidan. "The Responsibility to Protect: Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing?" International Relations. 24/2 2010.
  • Köchler, Hans, Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics. Is the Revival of the Doctrine of "Just War" Compatible with the International Rule of Law? (Studies in International Relations, XXVI.) Vienna: International Progress Organization, 2001.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Responsibility_to_protect&oldid=423509547"