On Power and Norms: Libya, Syria and the Responsibility to Protect

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Tocci
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International System ◽  
Tipping Point ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
The West ◽  
Power Shift ◽  
Systemic Understanding ◽  
Emerging Powers

In 2011 the United Nations Security Council legitimized a no-fly zone over Libya under the normative rubric of the ‘responsibility to protect’. As the Libya intervention gained steam, another uprising broke out in Syria. In contrast to Libya, discord between Western actors and emerging powers underpinned standstill at the Council. What explains such radically different outcomes? The international responses to the crises in Libya and Syria may look like evidence of a tipping point in the international system which is undergoing a profound power shift. And yet the two crises unfolded almost in parallel. This article argues that while a systemic understanding of power cannot capture the dynamics underpinning the Libyan and Syrian crises, power is crucial in explaining their very different outcomes. While not revealing a tipping point in the international system from the ‘West’ to the ‘Rest’, a situated and multifaceted analysis of power reveals that both Western and brics countries played key roles in determining the overall international responses to both crises and in so doing are shaping the ongoing normative debate over the ‘Responsibility to Protect’.

The Myth of Protection: Gendering Protection under the Responsibility to Protect in Gaza

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timea Spitka
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Potential Tool

Although international norms on the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ), norms stemming from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the agenda of Women, Peace and Security (wps) have shifted the narrative from a state-centric to a human-centric approach to security, they have failed to intersect in the most difficult contexts. This paper examines the intersections between Pillar iii of R2P, Resolution 1325 and the agenda of wps with a focus on protection in Gaza. Within the Gaza context, all authorities can be seen as failing in their responsibility to protect, however, no steps have been taken toward operationalisation of protection under R2P. Examining protection through a gendered lens provides a critical mirror of strategies of protection as well as a roadmap towards improvement. The article argues that R2P in combination with the agenda of wps provides a potential tool for constructing a consensus prioritising protection of civilians in the most difficult contexts.

scholarly journals Can The United Nations Security Council Be Democratized?

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aderemi Opeyemi Ade-Ibijola
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International System ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
The United Nations

The quest for the democratization of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the most critical issues that has confronted the United Nations (UN) system for the better part of the organization’s existence. To this end, this paper examines the call for the democratization of the UNSC and the challenges thereof. It argues that the attempts to democratize the UNSC has been unsuccessful due to fact that the UNSC was not designed to be a democratic organ from its inception. The paper submits that a democratically constituted UNSC will lead to chaos and disorder in the international system.

BRICS and Global Governance: Will the Grouping be able to Reform the United Nations Security Council?

2021 ◽  
pp. 002088172110294
Author(s):  
Francesco Petrone
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Security Council ◽  
World Order ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Central Position ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Emerging Powers

This article analyses the role played by the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries within the context of the reform of international institutions, in primis the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In recent years, the new emerging powers, among which the BRICS occupy a central position, have instigated a paradigm shift in international relations and global governance (GG). Furthermore, some scholars argue that the BRICS could inaugurate a new world order. Since the United Nations (UN) is one of the institutions in which these changes need to be more broadly reflected due to its global projection, it is doubtful if the BRICS will be able to bring about its reform. In fact, several debates were conducted about the need to reform the UN and, in particular, the Security Council (SC). In order to do this, the article examines the interests of the BRICS countries, within the group itself, and their vision for the UNSC. Only a common vision within the group could have specific effects in reforming the UNSC, thus giving a new shape to GG, which may not be possible. There are several obstacles from within the BRICS itself in this regard, despite the fact that during their summits, they have repeatedly called for the UN reforms.

scholarly journals Responsible Veto Restraint: a Transitional Cosmopolitan Reform Measure for the Responsibility to Protect

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-414
Author(s):  
Richard Illingworth
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
Reform Measure ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Abstract This article examines reform to the ‘veto’ power held by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The responsibility to react to mass atrocity crimes under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) lies predominantly in the hands of the Security Council, meaning that R2P and the veto are inseparable. Veto use can obstruct the Council from meeting its R2P, reflected by the ongoing crisis in Syria, over which 16 Council draft resolutions have been vetoed to date. This article applies a transitional cosmopolitan framework to offer an informal ‘Responsible Veto Restraint’ (rvr) recommendation for veto reform. This measure provides a more effective and feasible avenue for veto reform than the recommendations of the Accountability, Coherency, and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the France-Mexico Joint initiative for veto restraint. rvr can help promote R2P action through the Security Council, offering an avenue for progress towards addressing the problem of atrocity crimes.

Text and Context in the Responsibility to Protect: A Reply to Hehir

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Dunne ◽  
Katharine Gelber
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Argumentation Framework

This is a reply to Aiden Hehir’s critique of our earlier article published in this journal, in which we analysed international negotiations over the 2011 Libya crisis and argued that the humanitarian norm of protecting civilians was germane in these debates and subsequent United Nations Security Council Resolutions. In the reply we challenge some of Hehir’s allegations as to what was argued in the original article, reaffirm the argumentation framework against which we analysed the data, and summarise the evidence on which we relied.

Tilting at Windmills? The Indian Debate over the Responsibility to Protect after UNSC Resolution 1973

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Hall
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Ethical Values ◽  
Indian Government ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
Indian Foreign Policy

India voted for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, but abstained from Resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, subsequently criticizing the NATO campaign. This stance provoked much comment within India and among foreign commentators on Indian foreign policy. Some praised it as morally superior to approving military action, which was portrayed by some as Western ‘neo-colonialism’. Others, however, were critical of India’s unwillingness to back intervention in Libya and the principle of the Responsibility to Protect. For the critics, India’s objections to UNSC 1973 merely demonstrated the continued weakness of the foreign policy establishment and its inability to balance power politics and ethical values. This article evaluates these various positions, but argues that while the Libyan episode stimulated an unprecedented amount of comment in India about R2P, it is unlikely that the Indian government or leading Indian commentators will soon shift their positions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document