RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT? THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY’S FAILURE TO PROTECT THE ROHINGYA

Asian Affairs ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Iqthyer Uddin Md Zahed
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Failure To Protect

Failure to Protect Girls from Female Genital Mutilation

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 344-357
Author(s):  
Theodora A. Christou ◽  
Sam Fowles
Keyword(s):  
Female Genital Mutilation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Genital Mutilation ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Female Genital

Whilst FGM had been a crime in the UK for over 2 decades, over 60, 000 girls continued to be mutilated. In 2015 the UK took its international obligations to protect girls from such physical harm more seriously and enacted new legislation. This article focuses on the parental responsibility to protect their daughter from harm and their criminal liability if they fail to take adequate action to prevent the mutilation occurring. We explore the socio-legal setting, the gaps in the law, the state's international obligations and finally the newly introduced rebuttable presumption.

scholarly journals The Road Not Taken: Failure to Protect from Atrocity Crimes in Myanmar

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-100
Author(s):  
Malina Greta Meret Gepp
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
The Road ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

In 2005, more than 150 heads of State and government pledged that the world must never witness another Rwanda. They accepted the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) both their own populations, and those of other States from atrocity crimes. Yet, in late August 2017, thousands of Rohingya had to flee from the alleged genocide taking place in their home, northern Rakhine in Myanmar. The international community, equipped with a toolbox developed and refined over the past 12 years, does nothing more than politely asking Myanmar to stop. This begs the question: to what extent can the Responsibility to Protect doctrine be used to save the Rohingya from atrocities committed against them? This article explores the potential application of the R2P in the context of Myanmar by exploring the root causes of the alleged genocide, the legal status of the R2P and various options open to the international community to protect the Rohingya. The case is made that applying the R2P – in its current shape and form – would be in the best interest of the Rohingya. After all, the international community cannot stand by in the wake of another mass atrocity. 

The Failure to Protect in Myanmar: A Reflection on National Protection of Rohingya against Mass Atrocity Crimes and Prospects for the Responsibility to Protect

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Nickey Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Central Component ◽  
Ethnic Minority Groups ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
The Military

Abstract Impunity has been a major cause of the atrocity crimes committed by the Myanmar military, and accountability is generally seen as a central component of R2P. This article traces the changes of attitudes towards R2P-related measures in Myanmar. After 2017, voices gradually emerged from within Myanmar civil society in support of R2P, influenced by international efforts to ensure accountability and documentation. However, this support mostly came from ethnic minority groups. In the broader population and political leadership, calls for R2P were met with general hostility. Since the February 2021 coup, there has been a dramatic change of attitudes towards R2P, at least within the protest movement. However, the growing calls for R2P often reflect a desire for international military intervention that is unlikely to happen. Moreover, domestic efforts to hold the military accountable are now even more unlikely. International action to push for accountability is therefore still needed.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS OVER THE CLEAN WATER

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nadzir
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Human Life ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
State Control ◽  
Government Responsibility ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Water plays a very important role in supporting human life and other living beings as goods that meet public needs. Water is one of the declared goods controlled by the state as mentioned in the constitution of the republic of Indonesia. The state control over water indicated that water management can bring justice and prosperity for all Indonesian people. However, in fact, water currently becomes a product commercialized by individuals and corporations. It raised a question on how the government responsibility to protect the people's right to clean water. This study found that in normative context, the government had been responsible in protecting the people’s right over the clean water. However, in practical context, it found that the government had not fully protected people's right over clean water. The government still interpreted the state control over water in the form of creating policies, establishing a set of regulations, conducting management, and also supervision.

Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
General Decline ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Way

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document