The Responsibility to Prevent: On the Assumed Legal Nature of Responsibility to Protect and its Relationship with Conflict Prevention

2011 ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Hanne Cuyckens ◽  
Philip De Man
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Legal Nature

Europe and the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara de Franco ◽  
Christoph Meyer ◽  
Karen E. Smith
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses acceptance and implementation of the norm of the responsibility to protect by the European Union and its member states. Although European states have accepted the norm, and supported its development at the UN, progress in implementing it has been patchier. The chapter looks at the degree to which there has been programmatic, bureaucratic and operational implementation of the norm by the EU in particular. It finds there are wide divergences in Europe over the use of military force with regard to pillar 3 of R2P, a lack of EU bureaucratic capacity and will to implement pillars 1 and 2 of R2P, and confusion over the clarity of the norm which has led to the conflation of conflict prevention with mass atrocity prevention.

Analysis on the Legal Nature of ‘Responsibility to Protect’

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-295
Author(s):  
Hui-Chol Pak ◽  
Hye-Ryon Son ◽  
Son-Kyong Jong
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Law ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
The West ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Sceptical View ◽  
Different Parts

At present, some states are undertaking military interventions in different parts of the world, contending the ‘legitimacy’ of their i006Evocation of responsibility to protect civilians from a humanitarian crisis. Discussions at international forums concerning the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are inconclusive about its legal nature and application. While some scholars and states support the doctrine of R2P as being legitimate, others challenge or take a rather sceptical view. Divergent views seem to be originating from its incompatibilities with the rules of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. What is controversial is that the supporters of R2P are mainly from the West, while objections to R2P are from developing countries mainly from West Asia or Africa. This raises concerns about the possibility of future applications of R2P in any of the countries in these regions or other developing countries. The article, analyses the legal nature of R2P in terms of the main principles of international law and other sources of international law and argues that the legitimacy and international legal effect of R2P are uncertain.

A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush – On the Assumed Legal Nature of the Responsibility to Protect

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekkehard Strauss
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
History Of

AbstractBased on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice that resolutions of the General Assembly can only create legal provisions in exceptional circumstances, the review of the negotiation history of the Summit Outcome Document and the recent practice of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council related to the implementation of the agreement on the responsibility to protect leads to the conclusion that no new collective legal obligation has been created. Instead, the responsibility offers an opportunity to improve the implementation of existing legal obligations to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. If used for the development of a continuum of civil and military action to prevent and halt only these exceptional crimes, the necessary practice and opinio juris might be created over time, to establish the responsibility to protect as a norm of international customary law.

The International Law of Peace

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-76
Author(s):  
Cecilia M. Bailliet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Human Security ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Peaceful Coexistence ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Peace Treaties

Contemporary international law is in a state of flux based on shifts within the geopolitical order. This chapter discusses the normative evolution of the concept of peace international law from peaceful coexistence to the current identification of a right to peace and discusses the interface with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It discusses a wide range of dilemmas presented by peace treaties, Jus Post Bellum, and the interface between the umbrella terms of Human Security, Security, and Peace. The chapter suggests that these normative iterations represent a watershed in human rights and international law as non-Western approaches to conflict prevention gain traction.

Conflict Prevention and R2P

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Reike
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Subsequent Research ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines how the agenda of prevention of armed conflict relates to the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P). While R2P was originally assumed to be fully compatible with the goals and principles of traditional conflict prevention, subsequent research has disentangled the relationship between R2P and conflict prevention, arguing that conflict prevention is a necessary but not a sufficient component of atrocity prevention, and that atrocity prevention needs to include a strategy for deterring potential perpetrators. Recent scholarship has started to examine the implications of marrying R2P to international criminal law categories. What follows from R2P’s move to crimes is an individualization of the principle, as well as a shift towards partiality, intrusion, and coercion. This means that where a threat of atrocity crimes occurs in the context of armed conflict, it cannot simply be assumed that R2P and conflict prevention are pulling in the same direction.

From 'Sovereignty as Responsibility' to the 'Responsibility to Protect'

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Deng
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Modern Nation State

AbstractThis essay examines the origins and evolution of the concepts of 'sovereignty as responsibility' and the 'responsibility to protect'. In particular, it considers the role and duty of states and how ideas of sovereignty have evolved since the modern nation-state was conceived by the European Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. It then examines the responsibility of states towards their own citizens and traces the development of the R2P norm in Africa as it has related to conflict prevention, management, and resolution since the end of the Cold War. The essay further considers the responsibilities of national democratic governments in Africa and beyond. Recent developments that have widened the scope and helped the acceptance and application of the concept of 'sovereignty as responsibility' are discussed, and the essay concludes with an examination of the accountability and enforcement challenges faced by R2P.

Health Indicators for Conflict Prevention

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (S2) ◽  
pp. S35
Author(s):  
Rashid A. Chotani ◽  
Jason M. M. Spangler
Keyword(s):  
Health Indicators ◽  
Conflict Prevention
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document