R2P

In order to better understand the background to this debate, this essay will provide an overview of the history of the idea of humanitarian intervention leading up to the adoption of the R2P principle at the 2005 UN World Summit. The essay will then move on to set the scene for the events leading up to the NATO military intervention in Libya.  After this, an analysis of the arguments based on four categories supporting and opposing the NATO intervention in Libya based the R2P principle will be carried out. Within this analysis of the arguments for and against military intervention based on R2P, a discussion of the merits / demerits of the RP2 concept will be conducted. Finally, the essay will provide a summary of the main points from either side of the debate before concluding that while it is true that the spirit on which the R2P principle is based is morally right, until a further developed principle with strict criteria that govern actions before, during and after interventions, R2P will just be another form of humanitarian imperialism.

Bu çalışma Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin uluslararası hukuk davranışını,‘koruma sorumluluğu’ doktrini çerçevesinde incelemeyi hedeflemektedir. Uluslararası sistemde insani değerlerin korunması amacıyla Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) tara- fından ortaya koyulan koruma sorumluluğu, iç savaş veya terör gibi nedenler- den dolayı devletlerin kendi halklarını korumada yetersiz kaldığı veya başarısız olduğu durumlarda, bu sorumluluğun uluslararası sistemde yer alan diğer aktörlerin müşterek sorumluluğuna geçtiği anlamına gelmektedir. Arap Baharı sürecinde 2011 tarihinde Libya’ya uygulanan BM Güvenlik Konseyi kararı ve sonrasında gerçekleşen müdahale koruma sorumluluğu doktrininin hayata geçirildiği ilk örnek olmuştur. Bu doğrultuda, Libya’ya yapılan müdahalede Türkiye’nin hangi insan hakları ve hukuki unsurlara atıf yaptığı analiz edilerek, koruma sorumluluğunun BM Genel Kurulu oturumlarında ‘gelişmekte olan bir norm’ olarak ortaya çıkma sürecinde ve Libya operasyonunda uygulanması sırasında Türkiye tarafından özellikle ‘müdahaleci devletlerin çıkarlarının en- gellenmesi’ ve ‘ulusal egemenliğin ve halkların kendi geleceğini belirleme hak- kının’ gözetilmesi unsurlarına dikkat çekilmiştir.

This paper presented at a conference at the Helsinki Castren Institute for International Law and Human Rights is an exploration of the relationship between international criminal justice and R2P, and how the two are part of evolving interventionist discourses that reaffirm the centrality of at least some states and of the Security Council rather than fundamentally challenge them. The final and edited version will be published in the Finnish Yearbook of International Law and for citation purposes is the only authoritative one.

How does normative change occur in international organisations (IOs)? The literature has theorised IO behaviour as being a consequence of the interest of powerful states, or has applied concepts borrowed from organisational sociology related to bureaucratic dysfunction, such as ‘dysfunctional behaviour’, ‘pathologies’, or ‘organised hypocrisy’. This article argues that using the sociology of professions can augment constructivist theorising of IO behaviour and offer a better understanding of normative change in IOs. The evolving norm of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has a significant impact on how the UN supports and intervenes in member states, and on the core principle of sovereignty in the international system. By examining the R2P concept and process, this article shows how key donor states, think tanks, and academic institutions have, together with the UN, pushed for R2P, effectively driving normative change in the international system. Such change is seen not solely as a top–down function of state interests, but as also a bottom–up process driven by advocacy and support from key donor states, think tanks, and academic circles. Further, for grasping how norms develop, a constructivist framework influenced by the sociology of professions appears better suited than existing constructivist frameworks.

IRRI's new report on the African Union and the Responsibility to Protect (r2P), explores how this principle has taken root within the continental union, in the form of non-indifference, providing background on the principle of R2P and on the relevant legal and institutional frameworks of the Organisation of the African Union (OAU) and the African Union (AU).

The paper analyses different cases of intervention under the OAU and the AU and then analyses the challenges for the AU in implementing R2P in the form of non-indifference. First, the conceptual relation between the concepts of R2P and non-indifference is described, followed by the absence of clear triggers for AU action and the lack of clarity about decision-making. Finally, the difficult access to sufficient financial resources and political will among heads of state are identified as key challenges for the AU's role in preventing and addressing atrocities.

UNO-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-Moon, wie auch seine Vorgänger, nannte die Kodifizierung der R2P eine der vorrangigen Aufgaben der UNO. Seit 2001 bis heute wurde versucht die R2P im Völkerrecht zu verankern. Ich untersuche, ob und in welchem Ausmaß dies schon gelungen ist. Sowohl auf der formalen Ebenen der Zustimmung oder Ablehnung der R2P durch die Staatengemeinschaft als auch durch die Staatenpraxis im Spannungsfeld von Erwartungsäußerung und Verhalten.

The UN Security Council is making increasing use of its Chapter VII powers to authorize peacekeeping missions to protect civilians (POC) against threats to their right to life or physical integrity. This is of both normative and practical significance and is transforming “traditional” notions of peacekeeping. For protection to be effective, there must be a common understanding who should be protected, from what, by whom and until when. However, the term is also used in a number of other senses whose vagueness and elasticity diminishes their practical utility. Confusing the notion of protection of civilians—which is firmly rooted in international humanitarian and human rights law—with the political “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine risks undermining the practical protection that UN peacekeeping missions should provide.

This volume discusses the perspectives of Germany, India, Brazil and South Africa (GIBSA) on the evolving norm of the responsibility to protect. Special consideration is given to the most recent cases of Cote d'Ivoire, Libya and Syria. The volume is based on a one day workshop held at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, June 2012.

Référence: GUELDICH (H.), « Rapport introductif : Genèse de la responsabilité de protéger», in BEN ACHOUR (R.), (sous-direction), Responsabilité de protéger et révoltes populaires, colloque FSJPST 2012, éditions Toulouse Capitole 2013, pp. 13-42.

http://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/downloads/prif133.pdf

Ten years after the recognition of the Responsibility to Protect, this PRIF Report examines the controversies around this bundle of norms.

What is more important - protecting people from mass atrocity, such as a genocide and war crimes or protecting state sovereignty against interference by other states? This is one of the core controversial issues concerning the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Ten years ago, the UN General Assembly recognized the R2P, a bundle of norms for the prevention of and the reaction to atrocious acts against people. Although the acceptance of the norms has increased since then, they remain in the focus of controversial debates concerning their application, especially with regard to humanitarian interventions.

In PRIF Report No. 133 "Ten Years R2P – What Doesn‘t Kill a Norm Only Makes It Stronger? Contestation, Application and Institutionalization of International Atrocity Prevention and Response", Gregor Hofmann analyzes the discourse on the Responsibility to Protect. He differentiates between diverse aspects of approval and the contestation of the bundle of norms. Which aspects of the R2P are debated and which legitimate concerns are linked to them? The author highlights different possible paths for further development and shows how a dialogue with skeptics could  contribute to the improvement and thus the strengthening of the norm.

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is a new human security paradigm that re-conceptualizes state sovereignty as a ‘responsibility’ rather than a ‘right’. Its seminal endorsement by the 2005 World Summit has however not consolidated the intellectual parameters of the norm. Neither has it succeeded in galvanizing R2P’s doctrinal development, hence the January 2009 appeal by the UN Secretary-General for the international community to operationalise R2P at the doctrinal level, in addition to the institutional and policy levels. R2P represents a critical stage in the debate on intervention for human protection purposes, but its key concepts require more exploration. Africa is a uniquely placed stakeholder in R2P on account of its disproportionate share of humanitarian crises and because Africans have played key roles in conceptualizing the norm. The continent should therefore not just offer an arena for, but indeed take the lead in, the conceptual journey that R2P’s doctrinal development requires.

The purpose of the present article is to question whether the military operation in Libya in 2011, implementing Security Council resolution 1973, is rightly regarded as a perfect case of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). First, the concept of R2P and the measures of the international community regarding Libya in 2011 will be shortly presented. In this part, emphasis will be put on alternatives to military intervention. Then, the actions of the international community, particularly through the Security Council, will be analysed with regard to the asserted implementation of the R2P. Possible consequences of the assumption, Libya was a perfect case of R2P, will also be discussed. Finally, this point will be further elaborated by way of taking a short look at the situation in Syria.

The Global Human Rights Regime has undergone significant changes since the United Nations was founded. The world has shifted from state-centric thinking to emphasizing the protection of individual rights. The Post-Cold War era has seen some of the most egregious violations of human dignity, yet also the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Step by step improvements have taken place. Protection of Civilians against mass atrocities has improved despite serious setbacks.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is the norm that is the product of the long development of International Law and Humanitarian Law. R2P is the lens that this dissertation uses to analyse the compatibility between UN and EU approaches to protecting civilians against mass atrocities. These two organisations are important norm setters in the field of Human Rights. Nevertheless this multilateral rules-based system is challenged by emerging powers that are not fully convinced that a Western based system is best for them.

Different consultative groups are becoming more interesting to great powers and emerging powers and this may possibly weaken the current multilateral system with the consequence that ad hoc decisions take stronger role and Human Rights issues will be marginalised. This is where the differences between UN and EU might become helpful. The supranational and more flexible character of the EU might keep the Human Rights on world’s agenda if it manages to promote effective multilateralism.

Référence: GUELDICH (H.), « Responsabilité de protéger, révoltes populaires et violations massives des droits de l’homme aujourd’hui », in BEN ACHOUR (R.), (sous-direction), Responsabilité de protéger et révoltes populaires, colloque FSJPST 2012, éditions Toulouse Capitole 2013, 73-89.

Twenty years after the end of the Rwandan genocide, knowledge production on the small country of a thousand hills remains a clamorous battle ground of post- and decolonial power and influence. This essay critically engages with the knowledge production on Rwanda in the West by conceptualizing it as a Wilsonian intervention in the post-colony: paternalistically well-intended at the service of the peace, democracy and free trade liberal triad, while at the same time silencing, self-contradictory and potentially counterproductive. The Wilsonian interventionist form of knowledge production is coated in a language of critical engagement and care. At the same time it is and allows for a continuous external engagement in view of this Wilsonian triad—a highly particularist view on the good life, cast in universal terms. As a former journalist and a researcher from the Belgian Rwandan diaspora and building on a decolonial research strategy, in this essay I reflect on potentially different avenues to produce and consume knowledge on the country. I do this by discussing the challenges and creative opportunities of a recently started research project on Agaciro (self-worth): a philosophy and public policy in post-genocide Rwanda rooted in its precolonial past, centred on the ideals of self-determination, dignity and self-reliance. Rather than inscribing itself firmly into the canon that aims at informing on Rwanda, this research project seeks to contribute to a different mode of imagining, studying and enacting sovereignty in today’s academic and political world, both permeated by the hegemonic principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P).

A Responsabilidade de Proteger é um conceito juridicamente novo e, justamente por isso, a despeito de sua aceitação pela sociedade internacional e por sua consolidação no Documento Final da Cúpula Mundial de 2005, não está, de forma alguma, isento de críticas e questionamentos. Na prática, a utilização da responsabilidade de proteger tem sido questionada quanto às motivações que levariam os Estados, especialmente os membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, a decidir ou não pela intervenção em face de cada caso concreto, levantando a hipótese da decisão ser motivada por interesses políticos, econômicos ou militares ao invés de ter como fundamento a proteção dos direitos humanos ou até mesmo a manutenção da paz e da segurança internacional. Esse contexto torna necessária a análise da relação entre a Responsabilidade de Proteger e os princípios da igualdade soberana dos Estados e da não intervenção, de modo a entender como cada um deles pode ser utilizado a impedir o uso indevido dos demais, bem como da relação entre a responsabilidade de proteger e o direito internacional humanitário e a proteção de civis. A presente monografia, ao abordar tais relações, tem por objetivo explicitar o contexto que levou ao surgimento da responsabilidade de proteger e seus desdobramentos ao longo dos anos para, em seguida, discutir os questionamentos impostos à responsabilidade de proteger. Estes questionamentos tornam clara a necessidade de se estabelecer um controle jurisdicional ao processo decisório do Conselho de Segurança que permita a ação da sociedade internacional nos casos de omissão, além da interrupção do processo interventivo e a possível punição dos envolvidos quando a aplicação da responsabilidade de proteger se mostrar indevida. Por fim, a presente monografia ocupa-se da análise das propostas de modelos de controle jurisdicional que poderiam ser adotados quanto à Responsabilidade de Proteger.

Artykuł dotyczy roli interwencji zbrojnej w koncepcji „odpowiedzialności za ochronę” (R2P). Analizuje warunki uzgodnione przez państwa (członków ONZ), które muszą być spełnione, aby uzasadnić użycie siły w ramach R2P. Wskazuje przypadki, w których NZ odnosiły się do R2P, żeby uzasadnić użycie siły (wskazano na przykłady interwencji w Libii i braku interwencji w Syrii). Ponadto dokonano oceny rozwoju koncepcji R2P pod względem jej wymiaru zbrojnego, w odwołaniu do propozycji brazylijskich i chińskich. Autorka twierdzi, że koncepcja R2P jest
nadal żywa i przydatna do opisu sytuacji politycznej, w której społeczność międzynarodowa powinna reagować na naruszenia praw człowieka. Koncepcja ta nie może być jednak wykorzystywana jako samoistna podstawa uzasadniania interwencji zbrojnej, gdyż oznaczałoby to pogwałcenie Karty Narodów Zjednoczonych.

The debate about a responsibility to protect people from mass atrocities goes to the heart of current changes in the world. Coinciding with the shift of power and influence away from the West, its nascent and contested evolution as a norm has become a crucial arena in which fundamental conflicts about the future global order play out—far beyond simplistic
dichotomies between ‘North’ and ‘South’ or ‘West’ and ‘Rest’. This special issue analyses how seven major powers engaged with these struggles over sovereignty and responsibility, universalism and exceptionalism, hypocrisy and selectivity. Emerging from a globally collaborative research group on ‘Global Norm Evolution and the Responsibility to Protect’,
the papers pursue three goals: to study major powers’ normative foreign policies in their historical, institutional and cultural background, to bring the role of major powers back into the analysis of norm development and to expand on the standard narrative about the evolution of ‘R2P’ by embedding it in a more global, less-Western centric context.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has become one of the most important technologies of war today. Formulated in the wake of NATO’s contentious 1999 humanitarian war against Serbia, the R2P doctrine was intellectually and institutionally elaborated during the first decade of the new century. The doctrine’s first field experiment came during the 2011 Libyan civil war when it was invoked by the UN Security Council in the name of protecting Libyan civilians from their government. Soon thereafter, the community of officials, activists, and scientists that had nurtured R2P since its inception have largely rendered the Libyan intervention highly warranted and ultimately worthwhile. Yet their accounts and assessments, particularly the conditions of the intervention’s necessity and success, are insufficient. The purpose of this article is to understand the conditions under which the R2P community is able to claim necessity and success in Libya, but without reproducing R2P’s self-understanding of the world. Partially based on new field research in Libya, this article examines the heterogeneous patterns of protection afforded by NATO’s intervention and contrasts these findings with the discursive processes of making and unmaking violence within accounts of the Libyan intervention put forward by R2P stakeholders. In the aftermath of the Libyan intervention, we see that the primary function of the R2P doctrine in global politics today is as a new anti-politics of protection that saves war by saving (some) strangers. These are not the intended purpose of the technology but they nerveless become visible within a more comprehensive account of the R2P doctrine than its scientific and political stakeholders are able to provide.

El tradicional principio de soberanía de los Estados ya no es entendido de manera absoluta y hoy es aceptado el hecho de que ante la inminente o actual comisión de ilícitos internacionales como el genocidio, la limpieza étnica, los crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad la comunidad internacional reaccione a través de medidas colectivas, oportunas y decisivas. Este artículo busca comprender la emergencia de la denominada Responsabilidad de Proteger (R2P) ante el Derecho Internacional Humanitario y el uso de la fuerza como instrumento de esta, a la luz de los últimos acontecimientos en Libia y Siria.

The traditional principle of state sovereignty is not understood nowadays as an absolute and it is now accepted that the imminent or actual commission of international crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity the international community is entitled to react through collective, timely and decisive action. This article aims to understand the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) within the International Humanitarian Law and the use of force as an instrument, with regard of recent developments in Libya and Syria.

Published in: Revista Jurídica Unicuritiba, vol. 02, n.º 59, Curitiba, 2020, p. 47-77
DOI: 10.21902/revistajur.2316-753X.v2i59.4103
e-ISSN: 2316-753X

ABSTRACT:

Objectives: The paper aims to present a legal analysis of R2P in light of contemporary international law. It questions whether R2P is lawful as a just war (jus bellum justum) doctrine under international law, specifically, under the general prohibition for the use of force pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. The paper first analyzes the just war doctrine in light of international law. Thereafter, it studies the legal framework for the use of force in the UN Charter. Thirdly, it studies R2P in legal light as a just war doctrine.

Methodology: The research is executed through a deductive approach, its scientific objective is exploratory, and its research technique is a bibliographical and documentary survey. It finds its methodological limits in a legal approach of the subject from a normative perspective focused on the legal validity of the institute under international law.

Results: The paper concludes that R2P has legal flaws and does not stand against UN Charter regulation on the usage of force, notably the norm that states that the use of force in international relations is an exclusive responsibility of the United Nations Security Council.

Contributions: The study shows its pertinence as an endeavor into a strictly legal analysis of a complex and highly political subject of humanitarian interventions. The matter becomes even more relevant when it is considered that, contemporaneously, the debate on a potential humanitarian intervention in Latin America (in Venezuela, specifically) resurfaces the risk of the continent being overtaken by an international armed conflict.

KEYWORDS: Responsibility to Protect (R2P); Humanitarian Intervention; Just War Doctrine; United Nations Security Council.

The six year war in Syria which has taken over 400.000 lives, led to the displacement of more than 11 million persons and has included war crimes and crimes against humanity, poses a serious challenge for R2P. One of the main reasons for inaction in this conflict is the blockade of the Security Council – as permanent members Russia and China have used their vetoes several times (Russia 6, China 5) to block proposed draft resolutions. The blockade has reinvigorated the appeals for a restrain in the use of the veto by the Permanent Members. This paper examines the Responsibility not to Veto (RN2V) idea – the idea to restraint the veto in the four cases susceptible to R2P. It briefly explores the idea’s history and then focuses on the two latest initiatives – the French proposal and the ACT’s Code of conduct. An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of these proposals is being conducted, after which an assessment of their chances of success takes place. The paper concludes that similarly to other attempts to reform the UN Security Council, these initiatives do not have a real chance of succeeding any time soon. Nevertheless, the paper offers three reasons why the debate surrounding these proposals is significant and hence should continue. First, the debates indicate an alternative approach in cases when the Security Council is blocked and therefore could improve the issue of right authority for R2P. Second, the wide support that these initiatives enjoy, indicates that the 2005 R2P formula – preparedness for a case-by-case reaction in situations of manifest failure – is not a satisfactory outcome for the international community. Thus, they signal a search for a new understanding of Pillar 3 of R2P. Finally, they show the need for further development and upgrade of ‘R2P-lite’.

Keywords: Responsibility not to Veto (RN2V), UN Security Council (UNSC), Responsibility to Protect (R2P, RtoP), veto, right authority

The responsibility to rebuild needs to be re-elevated to prominence as an integral component of R2P: conceptually, normatively and operationally; and its institutional homes in the un system and the Secretary-General's role clarified. The 2009 three pillar formulation of R2P works well in most contexts, but is problematic in that it buries and loses sight of the critical importance of the original iciss third ' responsibility to rebuild' and reconstruct war-raved societies to the point of being viable and self-sustaining once again. We derive some key lessons from the major international interventions of the twenty-first century and recall the context in which R2P was originally formulated in order to highlight the distinctive features of its contribution to international policy. We then describe three dimensions of the responsibility to rebuild – recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation – and the strategies and steps needed for the rebuilding agenda. Recalling that Security Council authorisation of R2P coercive operations is a nonnegotiable prerequisite, we suggest that the responsibility to rebuild can be reintroduced and implemented through the administrative and political leadership roles of the Secretary-General.

With an ostensible commitment to sovereignty and non-intervention and a long standing involvement in United Nations peacekeeping operations, India’s position on R2P seems puzzling.  Still, despite the rhetoric about India being an ‘emerging power’, it often abstains from diplomatic engagement beyond its region, including in R2P situations. What explains its sceptical interpretation, cautious attitude and limited practice? The paper shows that India’s position has evolved in three phases since 2005, from scepticism via calibrated engagement to renewed suspicions after the fall out of the Libya intervention. The paper argues that mainly domestic factors can account for these changes in India’s R2P policy. Despite these changes, however, India’s main concerns with R2P display remarkable consistency: an insistence on the consent of the state, a narrow definition of its scope involving a high threshold of violence, the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and a deeply ingrained scepticism towards the utility of the use of force.

How does power work in practice? Much of the ‘stuff’ that state agents and other international actors do, on an everyday basis, remains impenetrable to existing International Relations theory. This is unfortunate, as the everyday performance of international practices actually helps shape world policy outcomes. In this article, we develop a framework to grasp the concrete workings of power in international politics. The notion of ‘emergent power’ bridges two different understandings of power: as capability or relation. Emergent power refers to the generation and deployment of endogenous resources — social skills and competences — generated in particular practices. The framework is illustrated with an in-depth analysis of the multilateral diplomatic process that led to the 2011 international intervention in Libya. Through a detailed account of the negotiations at the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union, the article demonstrates how, in practice, state representatives translate their skills into actual influence and generate a power politics that eschews structural analysis. We argue that seemingly trivial struggles over diplomatic competence within these three multilateral organizations played a crucial role in the intervention in Libya. A focus on practice resituates existing approaches to power and influence in International Relations, demonstrating that, in practice, power also emerges locally from social contexts.