Brazil and R2P: Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force?

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Michael Kenkel
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
World Summit ◽  
American System ◽  
Brazilian Government ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
Outcome Document

This article traces the reaction of the Brazilian government to the emergence of the R2P norm. After an initial period of rejection, followed by a period of absence from UN debates, Brazil has recently engaged cautiously with R2P. The article gives a detailed analysis of the origins of the Latin American system of legal protections that resulted in an interpretation in the region that reduces sovereignty almost exclusively to the inviolability of borders. This interpretation is at the heart of Brazil’s rejection of R2P’s tenets regarding the use of force. It does not stand in the way, however, of its contributing decisively to the other two pillars identified in the Secretary General’s Implementation Report. The paper identifies two main factors that motivated the gradual opening of the Brazilian foreign policy establishment to R2P, one external and one internal. Externally, the strong endorsement of R2P in the World Summit Outcome Document did much to facilitate Brazil’s rapprochement with the concept. Concomitantly, Brazil’s rise as an emerging power has increasingly created tensions between regional traditions and still-dominant Northern views of the responsibilities that accompany Brazil’s global aspirations. Brazil is in the process of developing an approach to peace operations and intervention that defines responsibility separately from the use of force, obviating the effects of this perceived tension. As a result, Brazil has become an important peacekeeping troop contributor and is no longer a vocal detractor of R2P. It has begun adapting the non-military elements of the principle to its policy goals and looks set to be an active and important participant in the concept’s further implementation.

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.

Offensive Use of Force in Peace Operations: The Force Intervention Brigade

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Menent Savas Cazala
Keyword(s):  
Host Country ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

This study focuses on the establishment of the force intervention brigade in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an offensive armed force into the equation of peacekeeping and on the paradox related to legal, military and political issues. Introducing an overtly offensive combat force will confront controversial implications for UN peacekeeping’s basic principles regarding the use of force, consent of the host country and impartiality. The intervention brigade changed unprecedentedly the boundaries of peacekeeping while creating an environment of hesitation and reluctance in spite of successful actions and its renewed mandate since 2013.

Offensive Use of Force in Peace Operations: The Force Intervention Brigade

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Menent Savas Cazala
Keyword(s):  
Host Country ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

This study focuses on the establishment of the force intervention brigade in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an offensive armed force into the equation of peacekeeping and on the paradox related to legal, military and political issues. Introducing an overtly offensive combat force will confront controversial implications for UN peacekeeping’s basic principles regarding the use of force, consent of the host country and impartiality. The intervention brigade changed unprecedentedly the boundaries of peacekeeping while creating an environment of hesitation and reluctance in spite of successful actions and its renewed mandate since 2013.

Consular Protection and Solidarity across Borders

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Délano Alonso
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migrant Populations ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Large Populations ◽  
Mexican Government ◽  
Working Together

This chapter demonstrates how Latin American governments with large populations of migrants with precarious legal status in the United States are working together to promote policies focusing on their well-being and integration. It identifies the context in which these processes of policy diffusion and collaboration have taken place as well as their limitations. Notwithstanding the differences in capacities and motivations based on the domestic political and economic contexts, there is a convergence of practices and policies of diaspora engagement among Latin American countries driven by the common challenges faced by their migrant populations in the United States and by the Latino population more generally. These policies, framed as an issue of rights protection and the promotion of migrants’ well-being, are presented as a form of regional solidarity and unity, and are also mobilized by the Mexican government as a political instrument serving its foreign policy goals.

Brazil at World Stage

2012 ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
E. Dabagyan
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
American Continent ◽  
The North ◽  
Brazilian Government ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Short Period ◽  
International Reputation ◽  
The Military

The author puts forward and substantiates a thesis about the transformation of Brazil into an important actor of the international relations. This becomes possible because a number of factors, including the well-designed, multi-tasked and balanced foreign policy strategy. It was founded during the military regime. Then, it was maintained and developed by the civilian Brazilian governments, primarily by such an outstanding figure as the president L. da Silva. His successor D. Rousseff s in a short period of time managed to gain a solid international reputation. She successfully copes with the mission to lead Brazil into the club of world’s great powers. To perform this task Brazilian government constantly makes efforts to strengthen relations with the neighbors on the Latin American continent, to gradually smoothen tensions with the United States. Also, it closely works with the countries of BRICS, contributes to building bridges between the South and the North, as well as actively participates in the activities of international organizations and the settlement of contentious issues in the world.

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.

scholarly journals Administrative Functions of Implementation and Adjudication Guided by Primacy of Fundamental Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
The Public ◽  
American System ◽  
Administrative Functions ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Judicial Procedures ◽  
Administrative Adjudication

Abstract This article points out the bottlenecks in the systems of administrative adjudication in Latin America and suggests that the ineffectiveness should not be blamed entirely on the judicial system and judicial procedures. Rather, the Latin-American system of administrative justice should come to terms with its judicial system of general jurisdiction, gradually reducing the jurisdiction of courts over administrative disputes in favor of an administrative reform to ensure administrative functions of implementation and adjudication respecting the primacy of fundamental rights. The author concludes that it is necessary to think about a reform that leads public administrative authorities to act as an instrument for expressing the public interest rather than as end in itself or as an entity to protect self-serving, momentary political and financial interests that are not clearly bound by a duty to protect fundamental rights.

United Nations Peace Operations: Reconsidering the Principles, Reforming the Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-26
Author(s):  
A. Nikitin
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Practical Guidelines ◽  
National Coalition ◽  
Peace Enforcement ◽  
High Level ◽  
Self Defence

The article describes and debates main points and recommendations of the Report-2015 of the Independent High Level Group on the UN Peace Operations. The author analyses doctrinal innovations and practical guidelines suggested by the Group and debates consequences of the recommended “politicizing” of the UN operations (assuring the leading role for the UN in any political peace process supported by UN peacekeepers, and avoiding operations where the UN role is limited to passive disengagement of conflict sides). Necessity for and limits of reconsidering traditional principles of peacekeeping, such as impartiality, consent of conflict parties, and use of force for self-defence are questioned. Trends in UN operations are compared with trends in operations related to conflicts in the Post-Soviet space (South Ossetia/Georgia, Abkhazia/Georgia, Tajikistan, Transnistria/Moldova, etc.). The author advocates timeliness for an extended interpretation of the “defence of the mandate” formula instead of the classical “self-defence of the contingent”. It is suggested to practically erase the dividing line between operations of the “peacekeeping” type under the UN DPKO, and “political missions” under the UN Political Department. The arsenal of the UN instruments for conflict resolution must be widened from non-intrusive observation missions, conflict prevention and mediation, through support of ceasefire agreements and implementation of peace accords, down to coercive peace enforcement, offensive elements, and UN Charter Chapter VII-based collective operations against aggressive regimes and states. Poorly defined functions and insufficiently clarified use of force limits for the SC-mandated “UN Intervention Brigade” in Democratic Republic of Congo lead to unnecessary involvement of the UN into coercive actions. The experience of the UN “infrastructural hubs” establishing, like the one in Entebbe (Uganda) used for supplying eight African UN operations, is described. New technology for peacekeeping, like the use of unpiloted flying drones, opens new opportunities, but creates legal and practical problems. A distinction of functions between “blue helmets” (specially trained multinational UN contingents) and “green helmets” (regular national armies used by states in foreign conflicts) is recommended, including avoidance of counter-terrorism tasks and strong coercive tasks for the UN peacekeepers. Parallel and interfaced “partnerships” between the limited UN operations and more forceful national/coalition operations in the same areas are suggested instead.

Part IV Activities of Organizations, Ch.9 Peace Operations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayal Anjali ◽  
Howard Lise Morjé
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
World Organization

This chapter discusses the origins of peace operations; their evolution alongside the growing international conflict management structures of the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations; and their core functions, composition, and efficacy. Although peace operations have roots in earlier forms of military intervention, their emergence as a dominant tool for conflict management is a distinct innovation of the same internationalist project that forged the UN. Their evolution lays bare the fundamental tensions between state interests and the liberal internationalist project of a ‘world organization for the enforcement of peace’, and their execution has defined the way wars are fought today. The chapter focuses on UN peace operations throughout because they are the modal type of mission in the world. It also discusses the use of force within peace operations, an issue of growing importance that highlights fundamental tensions in the authorization and execution of internationally-led efforts to maintain global peace and security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document