scholarly journals Is a European Practice of Mass Atrocity Prevention Emerging? The European Union, Responsibility to Protect and the 2011 Libya Crisis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 44-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara De Franco ◽  
Annemarie Peen Rodt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Task Force ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

Observers have classified the European Union (EU) as reluctant in its implementation of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) (Task Force on the EU Prevention of Mass Atrocities, 2013). This contribution revisits that argument by employing a more nuanced interpretation of norm implementation than the binary conceptualisation typically applied. By appraising EU reactions to the 2011 Libyan crisis, we investigate whether a “European practice of mass atrocity prevention” is emerging and if so how this relates—or not—to R2P. We do this by investigating EU practices seeking to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity—paying particular attention to the three pillars and four policy areas included in the R2P framework (ICISS, 2001). Our review of EU responses to Libya seeks to unveil whether and if so how EU practice related to mass atrocity prevention in that country rejected, adopted or indeed adapted R2P. The enquiry appraises both how R2P mattered to the EU response and how the Libya crisis affected the Union’s approach to mass atrocity prevention and within it R2P. In this way, the study asks how norms can change practice, but also how practice can change norms. As such, our focus is on the inter-relationship between principles and practices of protection.

Europe and the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara de Franco ◽  
Christoph Meyer ◽  
Karen E. Smith
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses acceptance and implementation of the norm of the responsibility to protect by the European Union and its member states. Although European states have accepted the norm, and supported its development at the UN, progress in implementing it has been patchier. The chapter looks at the degree to which there has been programmatic, bureaucratic and operational implementation of the norm by the EU in particular. It finds there are wide divergences in Europe over the use of military force with regard to pillar 3 of R2P, a lack of EU bureaucratic capacity and will to implement pillars 1 and 2 of R2P, and confusion over the clarity of the norm which has led to the conflation of conflict prevention with mass atrocity prevention.

The Myanmar-Rohingya Crisis, Civilian Protection, and the Dilemma of the Responsibility to Protect Norm Institutionalization

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-74
Author(s):  
Nicholas Idris Erameh ◽  
Victor Ojakorotu
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
To Come

Existing studies on the Myanmar-Rohingyan crisis have explored the contending issues from a narrow perspective. This underscores the need for broader engagement by interrogating the veracity of the claims of mass atrocities against the Rohingyans, nonauthorization of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and implications for consolidating and internalizing the RtoP norm. This study argues that, while the acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against the Rohingyans satisfies four of the crimes upon which RtoP can be authorized, its nonauthorization suggests that in spite of its commitment to “Never Again,” the international community is yet to come to terms with issues bordering on mass atrocity and civilian protection. This inaction amidst widespread atrocities against the Rohingyans explains why the RtoP is not only contested, but also risks the chances of further nonutilization and institutionalization. Thus, the possibility that the RtoP would remain valuable depends on how the international criminal court and the global community prosecute those culpable of atrocities against the Rohingyans, adopt a clear rule of establishing when mass atrocity has been perpetuated and demand RtoP intervention, and ensure that these interventions are guided by the principle of Jus in Bellum and Jus ad Bello.

Assessing Polemics, Principles and Practices: China and the Responsibility to Protect

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Teitt
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
International Engagement

AbstractThis article offers an overview of subtle yet significant shifts in Beijing's stance on non-interference and evolving standards of responsible and responsive international engagement in humanitarian crises to highlight China's firm, but cautious, support for the responsibility to protect (R2P). Although it is reticent to apply sanctions and objects to nonconsensual force, China has clearly and consistently affirmed the R2P principle and issued corresponding statements in favor of bolstering the UN's capacity to avert mass atrocity. China's statements provide a basis for Beijing to play a constructive, if reserved, role in translating the responsibility to protect from principle to practice. This article argues that the path of most promise and least resistance for consolidating China's support for implementing the responsibility to protect is paved in practical engagement rather than polemics. It concludes with specific measures that may be taken for China to contribute to upholding the global pledge to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325: Putting the Responsibility to Protect into Practice

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahana Dharmapuri
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Theoretical Terms ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Security Operations

Although the principle of the Responsibility to Protect has a number of supporters, there is still little agreement on institutional procedures to execute Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) systematically. This is due to a lack of consensus on how exactly to operationalize specific RtoP practices with regard to genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. The acceptance of this line of thinking is peculiar in its ignorance of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UN 1325) on Women, Peace and Security, by militaries, both national and multinational, over the last five to ten years. Misunderstanding, underutilization, and neglect of the UN 1325 mandate within the RtoP community has caused many important developments in the field to be overlooked. This article attempts to begin filling that gap. It presents an overview of what UN 1325 is about and compares UN 1325 to the Responsibility to Protect agenda. It also examines how implementing UN 1325 in UN and NATO peace and security operations is pushing the RtoP agenda forward in practical, not theoretical, terms in three key areas of military peace and security operations – the transformation of doctrine, command structure, and capabilities.

COMMENTARY: COMBINATION THERAPY FOR ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: PERSPECTIVES OF THE EU/US CTAD TASK FORCE

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
E. Siemers
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
European Union ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Combination Therapies ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
The Eu

In October 2018, the European Union-North American Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease Task Force (EU/US CTAD Task Force) met to discuss an increasingly important topic, the scientific, regulatory, and logistical challenges to the development of combination therapies for AD. Challenges related to ever-changing scientific knowledge, challenges related to complex regulatory pathways and challenges related to the necessity for pharmaceutical companies to collaborate must all be addressed. These challenges must be met since task Force members unanimously agreed that successful treatment of AD will likely require combination therapies targeting multiple mechanisms and pathways.

The Responsibility to Protect as International Crimes Prevention

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Hubert ◽  
Ariela Blätter
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Organizational Policy ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Insufficient Attention

In 2005 the UN’s World Summit endorsed the idea that its members have a responsibility to prevent and halt genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Insufficient attention has been paid to clarifying how the definitions and evolving jurisprudence relating to these international crimes can provide clarity in identifying the unlawful acts that the Responsibility to Protect seeks to prevent and to halt. Specifically, an analysis of the elements of the crimes establishes the following parameters: attacks directed against any civilian population, committed in a widespread or systematic manner, in furtherance of a state or organizational policy, irrespective of the existence of discriminatory intent or an armed conflict. This conclusion makes reference to four ‘crimes’ redundant: crime against humanity alone provides an appropriate framework for conceptualizing and implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Although analysts focused on international crimes tend to prioritize accountability, such an approach need not be reactive. The essence of the Responsibility to Protect is best characterized as international crimes prevention.

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.

scholarly journals Zero Endemic Cases of Wildlife Rabies (Classical Rabies Virus, RABV) in the European Union by 2020: An Achievable Goal

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robardet ◽  
Bosnjak ◽  
Englund ◽  
Demetriou ◽  
Martín ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rabies Virus ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Domestic Animals ◽  
Reference Laboratory ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The elimination of rabies transmitted by Classical Rabies Virus (RABV) in the European Union (EU) is now in sight. Scientific advances have made it possible to develop oral vaccination for wildlife by incorporating rabies vaccines in baits for foxes. At the start of the 1980s, aerial distribution of vaccine baits was tested and found to be a promising tool. The EU identified rabies elimination as a priority, and provided considerable financial and technical resources to the infected EU Member States, allowing regular and large-scale rabies eradication programs based on aerial vaccination. The EU also provides support to non-EU countries in its eastern and south eastern borders. The key elements of the rabies eradication programs are oral rabies vaccination (ORV), quality control of vaccines and control of their distribution, rabies surveillance and monitoring of the vaccination effectiveness. EU Member States and non-EU countries with EU funded eradication programs counted on the technical support of the rabies subgroup of the Task Force for monitoring disease eradication and of the EU Reference Laboratory (EURL) for rabies. In 2018, eight rabies cases induced by classical rabies virus RABV (six in wild animals and two in domestic animals) were detected in three EU Member States, representing a sharp decrease compared to the situation in 2010, where there were more than 1500 cases in nine EU Member States. The goal is to reach zero cases in wildlife and domestic animals in the EU by 2020, a target that now seems achievable.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Fate of the Rohingya

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-450
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Un Security Council

The failure of the international community to adequately respond to patterns of discrimination against the ethnic Rohingya minority in Myanmar (Burma) eventually led to a genocide. The so-called “clearance operations” launched by Myanmar’s military in August 2017 tested the resilience of the international community’s commitment to defending human rights and upholding its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Two years later the UN Security Council has still not adopted a single resolution to name the crime committed against the Rohingya, or to hold the perpetrators accountable. Nevertheless, Rohingya survivors and international civil society have continued to campaign for justice under international law, and to advocate for targeted sanctions to be imposed on those responsible for atrocities. Faced with an inert Security Council, some UN member states have adopted inventive diplomatic measures to uphold their responsibility to protect.

The Dangerous Liaisons of the Responsibility to Protect and the Protection of Civilians in Peacekeeping Operations

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Tardy
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Management ◽  
Conceptual Development ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Issue Linkage ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Normative Basis

The parallel conceptual development and shared normative basis of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) and civilian protection in peacekeeping operations have led to a rapprochement between the two emerging norms. In 2009, in his efforts to operationalize RtoP, the UN Secretary-General explicitly called for the mainstreaming of the goals relating to RtoP in the areas of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. This article argues that the interdependence between RtoP and protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations should not be interpreted as being necessarily conducive to their parallel promotion or mutual strengthening. On the contrary, issue-linkage between them is likely to be counterproductive for three sets of reasons. First, RtoP is characterized by its exceptional nature and narrow agenda – in relation to the four threshold crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – while the civilian protection in peacekeeping agenda is broad-ranging. Second, there are differences in the degrees of coercion that the two concepts can produce that make them sufficiently distinct not to be amalgamated in the conflict management toolbox. Third, the contentious nature of the two concepts, and in particular the coercive dimension of pillar three of RtoP, is such that a two obvious issue-linkage would be counterproductive as it would exacerbate the norm localisation challenge of two already resisted emerging norms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document