16. The Responsibility to Protect

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

World Summit ◽

International Intervention ◽

Detailed Consideration ◽

The North ◽

The World ◽

Before And After

This chapter discusses the responsibility to protect, which has become the primary conceptual framework within which to consider international intervention to prevent crimes against humanity; it provides the background to the new doctrine’s appearance with a survey of the existing law and practice with respect to humanitarian intervention. It traces the doctrine’s intellectual and political development both before and after the adoption of the World Summit resolutions that embodied it. Debate about the doctrine has been characterized by significant differences of opinion and interpretation between nations of the North and the South. In that context, the chapter concludes with a detailed consideration of the contemporary standing of the doctrine in international law.

Indian Perspectives on the ‘Responsibility to Protect'

International Studies ◽

10.1177/0020881720930605 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 57 (3) ◽

pp. 296-316

Author(s):

Akanksha Singh

Keyword(s):

Developing Countries ◽

Security Council ◽

Initial Phase ◽

World Summit ◽

The Us ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The World ◽

Case Basis

The concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) took shape to refine the contested concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’. In the initial phase, the concept of R2P did not receive enthusiastic endorsement. Developing countries including India perceived it as a new body with the old spirit and likened it with the concept of humanitarian intervention, and this was reinforced by the US-led war against Iraq in 2003. However, the 2005 World Summit proved to be a watershed in the evolution of R2P, just as it is a landmark to understand an important phase of India’s approach to the idea. It would not be accurate to characterize India as a determined nay-sayer on R2P endorsement, particularly in view of the widely known priority India attached at the World Summit to the question of United Nations (UN) Security Council enlargement. Eventually, by 2009 (with the introduction of ‘three- pillar principles’ of R2P), India became a major proponent for the cautious and legitimate implementation of R2P. However, the experiences gained from Libya made India become a voice of caution in invoking forcible options under the R2P principle in Syria. In this article, the attempt has been made to articulate various permutations and combinations regarding India’s evolving approach to R2P on a case-by-case basis.

Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit

Ethics & International Affairs ◽

10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00012.x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 143-169 ◽

Cited By ~ 70

Author(s):

Alex J. Bellamy

Keyword(s):

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Ethnic Cleansing ◽

World Summit ◽

Key Factors ◽

Enforcement Action ◽

The Face ◽

High Level ◽

The Relationship

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.

From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect

10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.440 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Kurt Mills ◽

Cian O’Driscoll

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Legal Status ◽

Just War ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Humanitarian Assistance ◽

Self Determination ◽

World Summit ◽

The World

In contrast with humanitarian access or the provision of humanitarian assistance, humanitarian intervention is commonly defined as the threat or use of force by a state to prevent or end widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied. In support of their cause, advocates of humanitarian intervention often draw upon and reference the authority of the notional “just war.” The four main ways by which humanitarian intervention has been connected to the idea of the just war relate to the ideals of self-determination, punishment, responsibility, and conditional sovereignty. For a humanitarian intervention to be considered legitimate, there must be a just cause for intervention; the use of force must be a last resort; it must meet the standard of proportionality; and there must be a good likelihood that the use of force will contribute to a positive humanitarian outcome. The historical practice of humanitarian intervention can be traced from the nineteenth century to the recognition of the Responsibility to Protect by the World Summit in 2005 and its application in Darfur. Major conceptual debates surrounding humanitarian intervention include the problematic relation between sovereignty and human rights, the legal status of intervention, the issue of multilateralism versus unilateralism, and the quest for criteria for intervention.

The Genesis of R2P

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198753841.013.7 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Charles Cater ◽

David M. Malone

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

Human Security ◽

State Sovereignty ◽

World Summit ◽

Gareth Evans ◽

The World ◽

High Level ◽

Early Human ◽

Outcome Document

This chapter addresses the evolution of the responsibility to protect concept from September 1999 to its adoption in the World Summit Outcome Document of September 2005. It covers Kofi Annan’s ‘dilemma of intervention’, some early human security initiatives by Canada including the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and its report The Responsibility to Protect which first articulated the moniker as well as the concept, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, the negotiations and Outcome Document of the World Summit, and the early incorporation of protection of civilians within Security Council resolutions. Throughout this narrative, the importance of sustained advocacy by key individuals—including Kofi Annan, Lloyd Axworthy, and Gareth Evans among others—is presented as vital to the evolution (in theory and in practice) of the responsibility to protect.

The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention in Africa

10.1163/187598410x519543 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 2 (4) ◽

pp. 371-387 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Jeremy Sarkin

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Primary Responsibility ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The Will ◽

Global Peace ◽

External Interventions

AbstractThis essay investigates the connection between humanitarian intervention and R2P within an historical, legal, and conceptual context. It challenges the widely held view that Africa lacks the capacity to intervene in areas of conflict and human rights violations, arguing instead that the continent possesses the will and instruments to protect human rights. The author notes that, while the UN Security Council retains the primary responsibility for promoting global peace and security, the R2P norm remains contested even within the UN. The ECOWAS interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s were initially undertaken without UN approval, but were later sanctioned by the world body. These interventions undermined the idea of state sovereignty as independence from external interventions, which had previously constrained humanitarian missions in Africa. However, the essay argues that the R2P principle was boosted by the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 to prosecute persons suspected of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or genocide. In addition, the intervention clause in the AU's Constitutive Act of 2000 supports the R2P principle while prohibiting unilateral interventions. Notwithstanding these developments, the author notes that the AU and Africa's regional bodies still have a long way to go in translating the R2P doctrine into practice.

Evolution of the BRICS countries' approaches to the «responsibility to protect»

Political science (RU) ◽

10.31249/poln/2020.03.09 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 190-214

Author(s):

Svetlana Bokeriya ◽

Dmitriy Sidorov

Keyword(s):

Semantic Content ◽

Active Part ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Ethnic Cleansing ◽

Present Stage ◽

Personal Security ◽

Brics Countries ◽

Peace And Security

The three-stage transformation in the framework of «humanitarian intervention – personal security – responsibility to protect (R2 P)» reflects the international community's search for the most effective forms of protecting the population from crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. The concept of humanitarian intervention turned out to be untenable, and in 2005 the «responsibility to protect» was formalized. Responsibility to protect concept was intended to become an effective tool in the field of ensuring peace and security. The article deals with the approaches of the BRICS countries, which took an active part in the development of the R2 P, to its interpretation at the present stage. The contradictory semantic content and legal non-formality of the concept make it difficult to implement it in practice and divide R2 P researchers into two main groups. The key goal of the article is to study the evolution of the positions of the BRICS countries on R2 P.

The Adolescent: R2P at Fifteen

10.1163/1875-984x-01204007 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 381-383

Author(s):

Edward C. Luck

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

World Summit ◽

The World ◽

The United Nations

Abstract This contribution by the United Nations’ first Special Adviser for the Responsibility to Protect reflects on where R2P has been and where it is going fifteen years after it was approved at the World Summit of 2005.

The Responsibility to Protect as International Crimes Prevention

10.1163/187598412x619667 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 33-66 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Don Hubert ◽

Ariela Blätter

Keyword(s):

Armed Conflict ◽

War Crimes ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Ethnic Cleansing ◽

Organizational Policy ◽

World Summit ◽

Civilian Population ◽

International Crimes ◽

Insufficient Attention

In 2005 the UN’s World Summit endorsed the idea that its members have a responsibility to prevent and halt genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Insufficient attention has been paid to clarifying how the definitions and evolving jurisprudence relating to these international crimes can provide clarity in identifying the unlawful acts that the Responsibility to Protect seeks to prevent and to halt. Specifically, an analysis of the elements of the crimes establishes the following parameters: attacks directed against any civilian population, committed in a widespread or systematic manner, in furtherance of a state or organizational policy, irrespective of the existence of discriminatory intent or an armed conflict. This conclusion makes reference to four ‘crimes’ redundant: crime against humanity alone provides an appropriate framework for conceptualizing and implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Although analysts focused on international crimes tend to prioritize accountability, such an approach need not be reactive. The essence of the Responsibility to Protect is best characterized as international crimes prevention.

R2P at 15: Reflections of a Policymaker

10.1163/1875-984x-01204006 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 376-380

Author(s):

Victoria K. Holt

Keyword(s):

Civil Society ◽

World Summit ◽

Policy Researcher ◽

The World ◽

Us Government

Abstract The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was embraced at the World Summit 15 years ago, before nations and civil society had built the tools, knowledge and political endurance to implement its approach. Written by a policy researcher with R2P expertise who became a US diplomat involved in these issues, this piece reflects on the experience of the Obama administration’s efforts to bring US government focus to atrocity prevention. It considers what it got right, what it missed, and options for looking forward to address R2P in the decade ahead.

How the Responsibility to Protect Influences the Security Council’s Powers, Limits and Dynamic

Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies ◽

10.1163/18781527-00402005 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 315-353 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lisa-Marie Komp

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

World Summit ◽

Humanitarian Crises ◽

State Practice ◽

The World ◽

The Future ◽

Council Work

In 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was adopted in the World Summit Outcome with the aim to enable an efficient response to humanitarian crises by making the Security Council “work better”. The swift reaction to the events in Libya sparked the hope that the new concept enabled the Security Council to function this smoothly in the future. The debates within the Council in relation to the NATO intervention demonstrate that the Responsibility to Protect was able to contribute to this success in certain, limited ways. At the same time, these debates were herald to the problems experienced in relation to the events in Syria. Through an analyses of the debates concerning Libya within the Council, debates in other UN bodies related to the new concept, State practice, and relevant documents, this article will outline the potential of the Responsibility to Protect to make the Council “work better”, as well as its limitations.