Genocide in Kashmir and the United Nations Failure to Invoke Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Causes and Consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmood Hussain ◽  
Sumara Mehmood
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International System ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
National Interests ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract The member states of the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 unanimously adopted the resolution on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to save citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Since adoption, the norm has been invoked in Libya, South Sudan, Yemen, and Syria, nonetheless, the UN refrains to respond to the genocide committed in the Jammu & Kashmir and triggering a greater sense of anxiety. In this context, the present paper elucidates the factors behind the UN failure. It asks why the UN failed to call R2P despite systematic crimes against humanity in Kashmir. What factors or forces preclude the UN to invoke R2P? The paper argues that the inability of the UN to invoke R2P is a consequence of systemic and domestic factors. The Indo-US strategic partnership, materialism, and New Delhi’s influence in the international system are obstructing the UN’s ability to play a decisive role. Meanwhile, the economic and military potential of India and its regional influence forbid the international community to dissuade India not to commit genocide in Jammu & Kashmir. So the high politics of materialism and national interests override the norm of human rights and humanity.

The Emperor's New Clothes?

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekkehard Strauss
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Outcome Document

This publication attempts to assist the ongoing discussion on the operationalization of the responsibility to protect by the United Nations. After summarizing the negotiation process towards the agreement in the Summit Outcome Document, the practice of the application of the responsibility to protect by United Nations organs and other bodies since September 2005 is presented, before providing elements for a comprehensive review of existing United Nations capacities to prevent or halt genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Finally, the publication proposes elements for an immediate strategy of the Secretary-General and the United Nations departments, funds and agencies to facilitate the application of the responsibility to protect in practice in the immediate future.

UN General Assembly

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Normative Development ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Heads Of State

With the unanimous endorsement of the responsibility to protect (R2P) heads of state and government recognized that sovereignty entails responsibilities of the state to its people as relates to the protection from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Since the endorsement of R2P at the United Nations, progress has occurred at an unprecedented speed at the normative and operational levels with the past ten years also serving to identify challenges for the prevention of and response to atrocities. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has been the central forum for R2P’s normative development, and a growing actor within the UN system for its implementation. This chapter assesses the UNGA’s interaction with R2P, reflecting on how this body has contributed to the conceptual advancement and operationalization of the principle as well as discussing the challenges that have arisen within this forum.

scholarly journals Sacrosanct? The Challenge in Holding the United Nations Responsible for the Failure to Prevent Genocide

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-140
Author(s):  
Allan Mukuki
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Nations

States are collapsing and genocidal acts are being committed or may happen any moment. In these instances, states look to the United Nations (UN) to act in order to prevent genocide from happening. This article seeks to determine if there exists an obligation under international law for the UN to prevent genocide, and in that event, can the UN be held responsible under international law for failure to comply with this obligation? This article further analyses these questions by looking at the aspect of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which elicits an obligation to prevent genocide first to states and then to the UN. At the very minimum, every state must protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In the case of states failing to undertake this obligation, the UN is bound to step in and undertake this obligation. Hence, this is a responsibility that is an obligation to states first and then to the UN. In summation, this article establishes that the obligation to prevent genocide is a customary international law obligation. Further, the UN is bound by this obligation. However, it is shown that the procedures that are available to address its failure to uphold this obligation are inconsequential since the UN has absolute immunity and any decision, even if holding the UN responsible, cannot be enforced as against it. Neverthless, this article provides some recommendation(s) as to how the UN can play a role in ensuring accountability for failures within its ambit.

Investigating Crimes against Humanity in Syria and Iraq: The Commission for International Justice and Accountability

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Rankin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The United Nations

The failure of the United Nations to effect a ‘responsibility to protect’ in Syria and Iraq has provoked acrimonious debates over how the international community should respond to mass atrocities in the contemporary international order. Moreover, the fact that the International Criminal Court and other United Nations (un) agencies remain unable to investigate in Syria and Iraq, has reinvigorated debate on the mechanisms available to bring those most responsible for humanities gravest crimes to account. This article examines the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (cija). As non-state actors, cija conduct their investigations outside the United Nations system, with the aim of investigating and preparing case briefs for the most senior leaders suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria; and war crimes, crimes against humanity and allegations of genocide in Iraq. This article argues that in preparing case briefs for individual criminal liability for a future prosecution, cija have attempted to extend the system of international criminal law, and in so doing, pose a challenge to traditional notions of the state in relation to the concept of war and the law, and the relationship between power and law in the international system. The article concludes by the asking the question: does the international community have a ‘responsibility to prosecute’ those suspected of criminal misconduct?

scholarly journals Sub-regional organisations and the responsibility to protect: A case for the localisation and normative repatriation of sub-regional authority for coercive measures

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Paul Gichana
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
World Order ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Regional Organisations ◽  
The United Nations

SUMMARY The adoption of the responsibility to protect by the United Nations General Assembly marked a key milestone in the advancement of human security and the international protection of human rights. The textual adoption by the UNGA, however, was skewed in favour of the world order as it existed at the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations. Key among the recommendations downplayed by the UNGA text is the place of regional and sub-regional organisations in the implementation of the responsibility to protect. The consequence has been that sub-regional organisations have often been sidelined and their position on conflicts overlooked by the United Nations Security Council in its authorisation of R2P-related interventions. This article utilises the differences between the original R2P concept and the R2P norm adopted by the UNGA as well as subsequent discourses and state practice flowing from these differences to argue for R2P's localisation in the African context and for the normative repatriation of the authority of sub-regional organisations to adopt coercive measures under R2P. The article uses the Economic Community of West African States to illustrate the potential for sub-regional organisations to implement R2P when accorded the requisite regional and international support. Key words: sub-regional organisations; responsibility to protect; norm localisation; norm repatriation; peace and security

Rwanda and the Rohingya

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 199-214
Author(s):  
David J. Simon
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Global Civil Society ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Global Response ◽  
International Response ◽  
The United Nations

The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda led the United Nations and global civil society to attempt to reinvent the international atrocity prevention regime. The advent of the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect was to supposed to represent a new-found dedication to the goal of preventing mass atrocities and to intervene to stop them when they do break out. However, the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, who have been subject to years of persecution, ethnic cleansing, and – since 2017 – many elements of genocide, suggests that there has been more continuity than change. Rather, many of the same issues that plagued the global response to Rwanda are problematic again with respect to the Rohingya. This essay examines both the promise of change in the global anti-atrocity regime after Rwanda as well as the shortcomings that continue to plague the international response to atrocity.

North Korea

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Kondoch
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations

North Korea ranks among the least free societies in the world. The human rights situation inside the country has been described by the first UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn as sui generis (in its own category). In 2014, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea released a landmark report. In its detailed and well-written report, the Commission found that North Korea commits crimes against humanity. This chapter discusses the report from the perspective of the responsibility to protect (R2P).

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC BY THE UNITED NATIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Parulian Yusuf S.
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Central African Republic ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Humanitarian Crisis ◽  
Muslim Minority ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Governance Arrangements

State’s sovereignty enables the execution of governance arrangements and state’s (primary) obligation to protect citizens from the threats of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Moreover, sovereignty is considered as a state-owned right to reject forms of interventions. The opposition that arises between sovereignty and the protection of humanity encourages the birth of Responsibility to Protect. The humanitarian crisis occurred in the Central African Republic when the Central African Republic government was unable to stop the insurgency arising in its territory. Seleka and Anti-Balaka rebels were involved in the civil war in the Central African Republic. Seleka rebels attacked a predominantly Christian and Anti-Balaka population attacking a Muslim minority. This is of concern to the international community and encourages the United Nations Security Council to take action to resolve the humanitarian crisis in the Central African Republic under Responsibility to Protect.

Administrative convergence in the United Nations system? Patterns of administrative reform in four United Nations organizations over time

2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232110187
Author(s):  
Stephan Grohs ◽  
Daniel Rasch
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Public Management ◽  
New Public Management ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
New Public ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System ◽  
Over Time

This article asks how and why United Nations organizations reform their administrative structure and processes over time. It explores whether we can observe a convergence towards a coherent administrative model in the United Nations system. Like in most nation states, reform discussions according to models like New Public Management or post-New Public Management have permeated international public administrations. Against this background, the question of administrative convergence discussed for national administrative systems also arises for United Nations international public administrations. On the one hand, similar challenges, common reform ‘fashions’ and an increasing exchange within the United Nations system make convergence likely. Yet, on the other hand, distinct tasks, administrative styles and path dependencies might support divergent reform trajectories. This question of convergence is addressed by measuring the frequency, direction and rationales for reforms, using a sample of four international public administrations from the United Nations’ specialized agencies (the Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labour Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank). We find that convergence depends on the area of reform (human resources or organizational matters are more harmonized than others) and time (some international public administrations are faster or earlier than others). Points for practitioners This article identifies different drivers of reforms, as well as several supporting conditions, and obstacles to reform in international public administration, which is useful for understanding and planning change management. It highlights the issues policymakers should consider when implementing reform measures, especially institutional context, administrative styles and relevant actor constellations. Among other things, it shows that: the establishment of coordination bodies clearly leads to more homogeneous administrative practices; executive heads have a decisive role in the shaping of administrative reforms and have a specific interest to foster coordination and control in public organizations; and autonomy enables organizations to pursue reform policies apt to their individual challenges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document