scholarly journals The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice: Contesting competence claims in the normative context created by the Responsibility to Protect

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 630-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Ralph ◽  
Jess Gifkins
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
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.

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’.

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.

Regime-Induced Displacement and Decision-Making Within the United Nations Security Council: The Cases of Northern Iraq, Kosovo, and Darfur

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
Phil Orchard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Community ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Deployment ◽  
Northern Iraq ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mass Displacement

AbstractRegime-Induced Displacement – when governments deliberately use coercive tactics to cause mass displacement – is an increasing phenomenon. It is a problem for the international community because these situations challenge the ability of international and non-governmental organisations to provide the displaced with basic levels of protection and assistance. Yet even while these crises frequently cross the threshold envisioned in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, the Security Council has generally avoided direct interventions, as the ongoing crisis in Darfur demonstrates. This paper argues that this is not new behaviour. Rather, even the two most notable interventions to protect the displaced in these situations – the US-led military deployment in Northern Iraq in 1991 and the NATO-led intervention in Kosovo – were driven by circumstances and politics outside of the Council. This suggests that even as regime-induced displacement is increasing, the likelihood of seeing the Security Council use the R2P doctrine to protect the displaced without reform is negligible.

scholarly journals Responsibility To Protect: What For?

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Adelaida Rivera
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
The Military

On March 17th 2011, the United Nations Security Council approved the Resolution 1973 which authorized the use of force in Libya in order to protect civilians from the attacks performed by the state armed forces. The military action by NATO in Libya has resulted in diverse and divided opinions. The recourse of Responsibility to protect appeared later as a measure intended to be implemented in the ongoing conflict in Syria, but after two failed resolutions, it became clear that some UN Security Council members are not willing to repeat the Libyan scenario. This text aims to examine some basic notions of the R2P concept, its application in Libya and the implications of the results after the Libyan case on its possible application in Syria. Should the discussed objectives behind the application of Responsibility to Protect in the Libyan case and its results be determinant on the decision whether this doctrine can be applied in Syria? Is it possible that the mistakes committed in Libya, the atrocities now experienced in Syria and the non-response by the international community could mark the end of the whole concept of Responsibility to Protect? These questions are intended to be discussed in this paper.

scholarly journals Why Libya, but not Syria?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Caruso
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World War ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Compare And Contrast ◽  
World War Iii

In both Libya and Syria, an uprising of civilians against their rulers resulted in intra-state conflicts. Despite comparable circumstances, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has approached these situations in different ways. The existing literature tends to consider both conflicts in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Rather than compare and contrast the two conflicts in terms of assessing the effectiveness of R2P, the purpose of this paper is to examine why the UNSC authorized a military intervention in Libya, but not in Syria. This question arises out of the notion that similar conditions should elicit the same response. This research will present three main arguments to explain why the UNSC did not authorize the use of force in Syria as they did in Libya. The first is that the variety of actors fighting in Syria makes it difficult for intervention. The second is that the individual interactions between the permanent Security Council members and Syria further complicate intervention. The final argument is that the Security Council is upholding the foundation of the UN in preventing World War III.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document