scholarly journals Introducing Jus ante Bellum as a cosmopolitan approach to humanitarian intervention

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Wallace Brown ◽  
Alexandra Bohm
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
Public Right

Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.

The Dangers of the Dissemination of Misinformation in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherine Foty
Keyword(s):  
Regime Change ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
Initial Report ◽  
Initial Decision ◽  
Domestic Affairs

The creation of the responsibility to protect doctrine reformulated the historical notion of humanitarian intervention. The new doctrine was centered around the principle of nonintervention, a basic precept of the u.n. Charter system, with its initial report explicitly excluding regime change disguised as humanitarian intervention as external to the scope of the doctrine. Military intervention was only to be the means of last resort after the exhaustion of several preliminary mechanisms. In its implementation, the broad mandate of the responsibility to protect has been harshly criticized because it opens the possibility for powerful States, often seeking regime change, to interfere in the domestic affairs of weaker States. This article will first discuss (i) the chronology and evolution of the doctrine, (ii) situating it in the context of the u.n. Charter prohibition on the use of force and articulating its nonbinding nature. It will then examine (iii) the cases of Libya and Syria, focusing on the initial decision to intervene and how the dissemination of misinformation has served to promote military interventions where they would otherwise be considered illegitimate. The article will conclude with a brief discussion of (iv) how the international community can move beyond misapplication and seek to limit its abuse.

scholarly journals Examining of Relationship between Responsibility to Protect & Sovereignty of States in Light of Practice of International Community

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 256
Author(s):  
Alireza Karimi ◽  
A. Koosha ◽  
M. Najafi Asfad ◽  
M. T. Ansari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International System ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Peace And Security

With the end of the civil war and fading of military and ideological competitions of the superpowers and drastic changes in the international system, maintaining peace and security has been closely associated with the political, social economic and cultural structures of states and their behavior in observing the criteria of human rights. The Security Council as an organ, established for keeping Peace and Security has experienced great opposition to the sovereignty of states by using human rights rules as an alibi, and even has paved the way for military intervention. Normally, material breach of the human rights criteria and fundamental liberties can endanger the international peace and security. In this type of situations, the issue can be discussed in the Security Council with the request of the general assembly and the general secretary. IF the Security Council confirms a threat consequent to the material violation of human rights rules, it can enforce the required actions, regarding its obligations and authorities. The intervention of the Security Council as a representative of the international community with regard to taking decisions for humanitarian intervention in the context of the responsibility to protect and denying the absolute sovereignty of states on one hand and encouraging the states to guarantee the observance of civil rights of people and enabling them in the field of public welfare and even military intervention and protecting nations against tragedies such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the other hand are significant challenges. Although the responsibility to protect is practiced in the direction of legitimate intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign nation – states with the objective of protecting humanitarian rules, actually after 2001, the chances for humanitarian measures have been decreased. In this article, we will examine this issue that from the beginning of the third millennium what effects, the concept of responsibility to protect has had by limiting the sovereignty of states and redefining it, aligned with the humanitarian intervention by the Security Council?

Peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 134-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Hassler
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
International Solidarity ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces

This article examines the debate surrounding the responsibility to protect [R2P] with particular reference to the use of peacekeeping forces in that regard. Post-Cold War, human protection had expanded into a matter of international concern. Yet, where formerly humanitarian intervention was the mot du jour, a change in conceptual vocabulary led to the introduction of R2P and to a redefinition of sovereignty. Accordingly, the primary responsibility to protect its citizens rests with the sovereign state but, owing to international solidarity, the residual responsibility rests with the international community. Contextually, R2P is embedded in a continuum of responsibilities: prevent, react and rebuild. Proponents of the concept already see a norm in development. Still, divisions and confusion remain concerning the concept’s legal basis, its scope and its parameters. This is particularly relevant in view of peacekeeping forces, which have been increasingly deployed for humanitarian purposes. Because of ill-defined mandates and an overextension of resources, however, traditional peacekeeping is no longer suitable, lacking the resources, the personnel and the necessary expertise. To be able to fulfil the goals of R2P, peacekeeping will have to be redefined and the forces equipped with more robust mandates or fail.

scholarly journals The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1080-1102
Author(s):  
Robin Dunford ◽  
Michael Neu
Keyword(s):  
Recent Literature ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Structural Prevention ◽  
The Face

In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.

The responsibility to protect as a duty of care in international law and practice

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOUISE ARBOUR
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Duty Of Care

AbstractThis discussion focuses on the content of the responsibility to protect the norm. It specifically addresses the historical roots and development of the norm by describing its fundamental differences from the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The legal heart of the responsibility to protect concept and questions of when and how the norm is engaged are also examined. Finally, the discussion explores the role that the UN institutions can play in interpreting and applying the norm, as well as the mechanisms of cooperation in protection available to the international community.

scholarly journals The Use of R2P Mechanism by International Community in Cases of Serious Human Rights Infringements in Africa

Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (56) ◽  
pp. 193-209
Author(s):  
Jakub Kościółek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Conflict In Africa

The article presents the evolution of the approach to humanitarian intervention that in the 21st century had been framed in the concept of Responsibility to Protect. The article focuses particularly on the possibility of adopting R2P rule in Africa, especially second and third pillar of this mechanism Various cases of conflict in Africa and other types of security threats are discussed herein; those which were actually implemented and situations where they were had to be foregone. This description serves the purpose of defining situations when the R2P mechanism is found useful in continental security measures as well as indicating the factors needed to implement it in practice, regardless of pure declarations from regional states and organizations.

Coalitions of the Willing and the Shared Responsibility to Protect

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-87
Author(s):  
Toni Erskine
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Do So

There has been widespread support for the idea that the so-called ‘international community’ has a remedial moral responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from mass atrocities when their own governments fail to do so. Moreover, military intervention may, when necessary, be one means of discharging this proposed ‘responsibility to protect’ or, more colloquially, ‘R2P’. But, where exactly is this responsibility located? In other words, which body or bodies can be expected to discharge a duty to safeguard those who lack the protection of—or, indeed, come under threat from—their own government? In this chapter, I propose ‘coalitions of the willing’ as one (likely provocative) answer to this question, and explore how the informal nature of such associations should inform the judgements of moral responsibility that we make in relation to them. Perhaps most controversially, I suggest that, under certain circumstances, states and other entities each have a duty to contribute to establishing such an ad hoc association.

Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

2018 ◽  
pp. 460-478
Author(s):  
Ramesh Thakur
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The North ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
The North Atlantic

Cross-border military intervention is a recurring feature throughout history. Often, geopolitical and commercial calculations were cloaked in the language of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ After decolonization, developing countries embedded non-intervention as a peremptory norm. Many tyrants then used sovereignty as a shield behind which to commit atrocities with impunity. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened to protect victims of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, the Non-Aligned Movement denounced any right of humanitarian intervention. To reconcile the two competing imperatives, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proposed the principle of the ‘responsibility to protect’ to permit UN-authorized protective interventions while consolidating a rules-based order. Although much improved, however, dilemmas remain about when and by whom force can be used inside borders to guarantee human protection.

The International Community's Responsibility to Protect

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Glanville
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Regional Organisations

AbstractThe concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) holds that not only do sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their populations, but so too does the international community. The international community is said to be responsible for encouraging and assisting states to protect and also for taking collective action to enforce the protection of populations in instances where states fail to carry out their obligations. This idea that the international community itself bears not merely a right but a responsibility to protect, through military intervention if necessary, is perhaps the most novel aspect of the R2P concept, and it would seem to have extraordinary implications. Yet it remains largely under-examined. In this article, I consider how the notion that the international community bears a responsibility to protect might be fruitfully understood and conceptualised. After briefly outlining from where this idea has emerged, I consider two interrelated questions: What kind of responsibility is it – moral, legal, or political, or some combination of the three? And who in particular bears the responsibility – the international community broadly speaking, particular international institutions such as the Security Council, regional organisations, or individual states?

A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Kuperman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Regime Change ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Weapons Proliferation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Nato Intervention

NATO's 2011 humanitarian military intervention in Libya has been hailed as a model for implementing the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P), on grounds that it prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi and facilitated the ouster of Libya's oppressive ruler, Muammar al-Qaddafi, who had targeted peaceful civilian protesters. Before the international community embraces such conclusions, however, a more rigorous assessment of the net humanitarian impact of NATO intervention in Libya is warranted. The conventional narrative is flawed in its portrayal of both the nature of the violence in Libya prior to the intervention and NATO's eventual objective of regime change. An examination of the course of violence in Libya before and after NATO's action shows that the intervention backfired. The intervention extended the war's duration about sixfold; increased its death toll approximately seven to ten times; and exacerbated human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, Islamic radicalism, and weapons proliferation in Libya and its neighbors. If it is a “model intervention,” as senior NATO officials claim, it is a model of failure. Implementation of R2P must be reformed to address these unintended negative consequences and the dynamics underlying them. Only then will R2P be able to achieve its noble objectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document