Regionalising the Responsibility to Protect: Possibilities, Capabilities and Actualities

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Haugevik
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The Third ◽  
Regional Organisations ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The One ◽  
Outcome Document

AbstractThis article discusses what role regional organisations can and should play in ensuring implementation of the international Responsibility to Protect (R2P). What formal responsibility and which enabling capabilities do regional organisations have for assuming a role in protecting populations from mass atrocities? The article begins by discussing the formal role projected for regional organisations in the implementation of R2P, individually and vis-à-vis the UN, in the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document. The description of this role is then compared to the one depicted in the advisory 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The second part of the article offers an overview of relevant capabilities held by key regional organisations in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia, capabilities that could enable them to take part in protection tasks prior to, during, or in the aftermath of mass atrocities. In the third part of the report, the capability aspect is seen in relation to the constitutive and constraining impact that individual member states' interests may have on the ability of regional organisations to act within the context of R2P.

The Responsibility to Protect and its Critics: Explaining the Consensus

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Member States ◽  
Small Minority ◽  
The Third ◽  
Pillar Structure ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Outcome Document

AbstractWhile critics have claimed that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a North-South polarising issue and is therefore controversial, this is a deliberate misrepresentation in a rhetorical war led by a small minority of UN member states. The first section of this article briefly reviews the evolution of this emerging norm from its inception in the 2001 report by the International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (ICISS), to its endorsement in 2005 by more than 150 heads of states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, to its more recent configuration in a three-pillar structure. The next part seeks to identify the main criticisms that have been levelled at R2P. It touches on some of the myths and allegations that have long accompanied R2P, as well as on the chief legitimate concerns underlying the shift towards implementation. The third and concluding section briefly touches upon the impact of the interventions in Libya and Côte D'Ivoire upon the evolving R2P consensus, and critically assesses the implications of a normative strategy that has put a premium on unanimity and unqualified consensus.

scholarly journals The Antipolitical Theory of Responsibility to Protect

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Considerable Success ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Outcome Document

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, as initially set out in the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty of 2001, is difficult to place within the usual framework of IR theories (liberal internationalist, realist or radical) or International Political Theories (communitarian, cosmopolitan). This is primarily because by framing the issue of intervention in terms of the protection of civilians, the devisers of the doctrine attempted to de-politicise the act of intervention. An examination of the ICISS Report, the UN’s World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 and the experience of the application of the doctrine to the Libyan crisis of 2011 demonstrates that this attempt has not succeeded, and that the ‘antipolitical’ nature of Responsibility to Protect is a weakness not a strength. Still, the doctrine has had considerable success in changing the terms under which intervention is discussed at the UN and elsewhere.

The Genesis of R2P

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Cater ◽  
David M. Malone
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Human Security ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
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 Status of the “Responsibility to Protect (Rtop)“ Doctrine in Light of the Conflicts in Libya and Syria

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 495
Author(s):  
Petra Perisic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
The One ◽  
Outcome Document

In 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced a new doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)”, which signified an obligation of each state to protect its population from mass atrocities occurring in that state, as well as an obligation on the part of international community to offer such protection if the state in question fails to fulfill its duty. The doctrine of RtoP was subsequently endorsed by states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, though it was formulated more restrictively in comparison to the 2001 Report. In 2011 a conflict broke out in Libya between its ruler Muammar Gaddafi and the protesters against his rule. Government forces were brutal in their attempt to quell the protests and it was not long before different international bodies started to report mass violations of human rights. Surprisingly, the UN Security Council was not deadlocked by veto and passed the Resolution 1973, which invoked the RtoP principle and authorized the use of force. Supporters of RtoP hailed such an application of the principle and believed that the case of Libya was just a beginning of a successful bringing RtoP to life. Such predictions turned out to be premature. Not long after the Libyan conflict, the one in Syria began. Although Syrian people was faced with the same humanitarian disaster as Libyan did, the Security Council could not agree on passing of the resolution which would authorize the use of force to halt human rights violations. Two crises are being analyzed, as well as reasons behind such a disparate reaction of the Security Council in very similar circumstances.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Responses from Southeast Asia

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-42
Author(s):  
See Seng Tan
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
International Security ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
A Charge

This chapter examines extant understandings of sovereignty as responsibility, beginning with the idea of sovereign responsibility as conceptualised by Francis Deng and his collaborators, who contend that sovereignty can no longer be seen as a protection against interference, but as a charge of responsibility where the state is accountable to both domestic and external constituencies. The understanding is foundational to the thinking behind the 2001 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, which introduced the responsibility to protect (R2P) with the aim to popularise the concept of humanitarian intervention and democracy-restoring intervention. Since its endorsement by the United Nations, the R2P has evolved through efforts by the UN and others to enhance, operationalise as well as to implement it in actual crisis situations – with varying degrees of success and in some instances not without controversy. The chapter discusses the relevance of the sovereignty as responsibility idea to Southeast Asia. It also examines the existing academic and policy debate over the R2P and its relevance to international security and sovereign responsibility, as well as its ambivalent reception in Southeast Asia.

Framing the Responsibility to Protect

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Nackers
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Dominant Discourse ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
The Government ◽  
Outcome Document

The Responsibility to Protect (r2p), as enshrined in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, aims to protect populations from the commission of mass atrocities. Yet both Sri Lankan government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (ltte) forces killed thousands of civilians during the conclusion of Eelam War Four in Sri Lanka, in spite of the adoption of r2p by the Sri Lankan government. In this article, I argue that these atrocities occurred with little involvement on the part of the international community to stop them, in large part due to existing international political dynamics, which the framing efforts of the Sri Lankan government played upon. The government was able to determine the dominant discourse on the conflict and portrayed it as part of the War on Terror. This facilitated states in supporting the government in the conflict, while diminishing criticism from actors that may otherwise have been more supportive of the invocation of r2p.

scholarly journals Responsibility to Protect dalam Kasus Genosida oleh ISIL terhadap Yazidi-Irak melalui Intervensi Militer Amerika Serikat

Jurnal ICMES ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-63
Author(s):  
Dewi Agha Putri ◽  
Hasan Sidik
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Media Reports ◽  
United States Intervention ◽  
The Military

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan intervensi militer yang dilakukan oleh Amerika Serikat (AS) dalam menanggapi genosida yang dilakukan oleh Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terhadap komunitas Yazidi di Irak. Peneliti menggunakan konsep Responsibility to Protect (R2P), yang merujuk pada laporan dari the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) u This article aims to explain the military intervention carried out by the United States in response to the genocide carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) against Yazidi community in Iraq. The researchers use the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which refers to a report from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty to see the procedure for procuring military intervention in the R2P framework in detail. This article found that besides several collateral damages, military intervention carried out by the United States was following the procedures set out by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The United States’ intervention was done by the Iraqi government's approval, which had previously requested assistance from the United States. This intervention can be seen as Iraqi collective self-defense as stated in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations or intervention based on approval as stipulated in Article 20 of the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts 2001. This research was conducted qualitatively using sources in the form of a variety of documents and mass media reports. ntuk melihat prosedur intervensi militer dalam kerangka kerja R2P secara terperinci. Artikel ini menemukan bahwa meskipun telah terjadi sejumlah dampak sampingan (collateral damages), intervensi militer yang dilakukan oleh AS mengikuti prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh ICISS, antara lain, dilakukan AS atas persetujuan pemerintah Irak yang sebelumnya meminta bantuan dari AS. Intervensi ini dapat dilihat sebagai pertahanan diri kolektif Irak sebagaimana tercantum dalam Piagam Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Pasal 51 atau intervensi berdasarkan persetujuan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 20 Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts tahun 2001. Penelitian ini dilakukan secara kualitatif dengan menggunakan sumber-sumber berupa berbagai dokumen dan laporan media massa.

Africa’s Response to r2p

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-30
Author(s):  
Noemi Gal-Or
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
African Union ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The Third ◽  
Regional Collaboration ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Security Challenge ◽  
The One

Although the idea of r2p had been enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (au) shortly before the term was coined by the iciss, the au has been slow to live up to the commitment. Balancing r2p, on the one hand, with non-interference within the domaine reservé of the state, on the other hand, has proven an uphill battle. r2p sceptic member states have persistently opted for non-interference, and at most, a “non-indifference” approach representing a non-committal stance with regards to r2p. This paper offers reflections about the particular African construction of the third r2p “collective global” pillar, and explains the African reticence about the original iciss and 2005 World Summit Outcome versions of r2p. It expounds on the key reasons for this tempered reception and sheds light on the global governance security challenge as it plays out in the un-au politics of regional collaboration.

scholarly journals International Law, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: An Overview

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Thomas Prehi Botchway
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Style Of Writing

This paper is an attempt at analysing the intricacies between international law, the concept of Responsibility to Protect and its implications for the sovereignty of modern states. The paper examines how the concept of responsibility to protect (as stipulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)) impacts on the sovereignty of states. It adopts the essay style of writing and reviews a number of documents on the subject of international law, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect. The paper consequently argues that though the ICISS claims that its “purpose is not to license aggression with fine words, or to provide strong states with new rationales for doubtful strategic designs” (ICISS, 2001, p. 35), the Commission’s very attempt to exempt the permanent five and other so-called major powers from intervention does just that whether intentionally or unintentionally. It consequently recommends that much effort should be made to address the inequalities within the international system through the formulation of appropriate policies and international regulations that address the sovereign equality of states in the international system, especially on the question of intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document