scholarly journals Towards International Legitimization of the Responsibility to Protect’s Third Pillar

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Arsalan H. AlMizory
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Over the past few years, the question whether international law permits the use of force not in response to existing violence but to avert and prevent mass atrocity crimes occurring within the boundaries of a sovereign State has taken on added significant in the aftermath of the humanitarian tragedies of the 1990s. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a complicated and emerging norm of international law, which represents the start of a new era for the United Nations (UN), seeks to provide a means for the Security Council to take enforcement measures under Chapter VII to prevent mass atrocity crimes. The research discusses that when the Security Council is deadlock and peaceful measures have been exhausted, it is important to have a legal basis of using limited armed force as a last resort in the name of humanitarian intervention, to avert overwhelmingly atrocity crimes that a government has shown it is unwilling or unable to prevent. The research analyzes the case of Syria as a case study, which demonstrates that the presence of certain conditions enables the UN Security Council to implement R2P norm to save civilian populations from mass human rights violations.

un Security Council Resolutions before uk Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-64
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Effective Performance ◽  
The Uk

Over the past decade, the effective performance by the UN Security Council of its primary responsibility in the area of peace and security has increasingly become contingent on the implementation of its decisions within the national legal systems of the UN Member States. An examination of this issue in the context of the British legal system could offer a useful case-study of the ways to enhance the effectiveness of the UN collective security mechanism, to enforce the limits on the legitimacy of that mechanism, and also to highlight the practical difficulties that may accompany the attempts to apply Security Council resolutions domestically. This contribution exposes all these issues, focusing on the practice of the uk courts over the past decade. It examines the mediation of the effect of Security Council resolutions into English law through the 1946 United Nations Act, the royal prerogative and other common law techniques. After that, the contribution moves on to examine the English courts’ handling of the normative conflict between a Security Council resolution and other sources of international law.

The Security Council's Role in Fulfilling the Responsibility to Protect

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-243
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
World Order ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Protection Goals ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThe principle of the responsibility to protect (RtoP) conceives of a broad set of measures that can be employed in preventing and responding to atrocity crimes. Nevertheless, the UN Security Council remains an important part of the implementation architecture, given what the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty referred to as its authoritative position in international society as the “linchpin of order and stability.” As part of the roundtable “The Responsibility to Protect in a Changing World Order: Twenty Years since Its Inception,” this review of the Council's role in fulfilling its responsibility to protect advances two somewhat contrasting arguments about the original ICISS report. First, it suggests that the commissioners may have underestimated the Council's potential contribution, by concentrating on the authorization of coercive means to address crises of human protection. Over the past two decades, the Security Council has not only employed various diplomatic, political, and humanitarian measures to address atrocity crimes but also adjusted the purposes and practices of peace operations to advance protection goals and more subtly shaped discourses and expectations about state responsibilities for protection. However, I also argue that the willingness of the ICISS to identify potential alternatives to the Security Council when its members are paralyzed appears in retrospect to have been both bold and forward looking, in light of the Council's failures to act in a timely and decisive manner to protect amid crises and the contemporary realities of geopolitical rivalry. The article concludes by suggesting that future efforts to protect populations from atrocity crimes should focus not only on the herculean task of trying to change the behavior of P5 members of the Council but also on encouraging a new institutional balance between the Security Council and other intergovernmental bodies.

What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Falk
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Inspection Process ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

President George W. Bush historically challenged the United Nations Security Council when he uttered some memorable words in the course of his September 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly: “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” In the aftermath of the Iraq war there are at least two answers to this question. The answer of the U.S. government would be to suggest that the United Nations turned out to be irrelevant due to its failure to endorse recourse to war against the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The answer of those who opposed the war is that the UN Security Council served the purpose of its founding by its refusal to endorse recourse to a war that could not be persuasively reconciled with the UN Charter and international law. This difference of assessment is not just factual, whether Iraq was a threat and whether the inspection process was succeeding at a reasonable pace; it was also conceptual, even jurisprudential. The resolution of this latter debate is likely to shape the future role of the United Nations, as well as influence the attitude of the most powerful sovereign state as to the relationship between international law generally and the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy.

Implementing r2p: Towards a Regional Solution?

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bolarinwa Adediran
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
International Action ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Regional Organisations ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Syrian Conflict

Since the adoption of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) in 2005, proponents and critics alike have accepted that it has not brought about a consistent and effective response to mass atrocity crimes. The incapacity that the Security Council exhibits in addressing the Syrian conflict provides a compelling justification for the need to examine alternative mechanisms through which the principles of the doctrine can be implemented. This paper argues that regional organisations should be considered legitimate authorising mechanisms in place of the Security Council in implementing r2p. The use of regional institutions as authorising mechanisms has not been properly considered or rigorously defended. In the paper, I make a case for regional organisations in authorising international action during mass atrocity situations by first establishing the legitimacy of regional organisations to act in response to local disputes. I propose and defend four arguments that provide justification and establish the utility of regional arrangements as alternative authorising mechanisms. I also examine and respond to three key objections that can be made against regional organisations. Finally, I outline a set of criteria that should determine which regional organisations are considered legitimate actors during mass atrocity situations.

PROTECT RESPONSIBLY: THE AFRICAN UNION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 4(H) INTERVENTION

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 51-108
Author(s):  
Dan Kuwali
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
African Union ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Level ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThe concept of ‘the responsibility to protect’ (R2P) was endorsed at the 2005 World Summit by the UN General Assembly. This concept, like the right to intervene under Article 4(h) of theConstitutive Act of the African Union, aims to end mass atrocity crimes in the form of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Yet the question that remains is: what if the UN Security Council is unwilling or unable to act? Further, there is a continuing unanswered question: ‘should action to prevent large-scale killing in an African country be beholden to a Security Council that has no permanent African membership?’ The High-level Panel indicated that in some urgent situations UN Security Council authorization may be sought after operations have commenced, whereas the World Summit Outcome rejected demands that states or organizations such as the African Union (AU) should be able to act before gaining UN authorization. These are the principal issues addressed in this analysis, which discusses how the AU can implement the right to intervene under Article 4(h) against the background of the prohibition of the use of force regime under the UN Charter. The analysis explores the current thinking of the AU and the international community on the key question of how to proceed in cases where the UN Security Council is deadlocked in using force to prevent mass atrocity crimes. The discussion highlights the intention of the framers of the AU Actvis-à-visthe practice of the Security Council in authorizing enforcement action as well as views of various commentators in this regard.

Moral Agents of Protection and Supplementary Responsibilities to Protect

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Erskine
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Institutional Agents ◽  
Moral Imperative ◽  
Moral Agents ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
To Come

This chapter takes seriously the prevalent assumption that the responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocity represents a moral imperative. It highlights tensions between how R2P is articulated and arguments for its legitimate implementation. The chapter maintains that identifying a range of ‘moral agents of protection’ and ‘supplementary responsibilities to protect’ is fundamental to any attempt to realize R2P. It offers an account of the loci of moral responsibility implicit in prominent articulations of R2P that both supports and extends this argument. Taken to its logical conclusion, this account demands that hitherto unacknowledged moral agents of protection step in when the host state and the UN are unwilling or unable to act. The chapter examines which bodies can discharge this residual responsibility to protect and proposes that, in certain urgent circumstances, institutional agents have a shared responsibility to come together and act in concert, even without UN Security Council authorization.

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.

scholarly journals The Responsibility to Protect and the Great Powers: The Tensions of Dual Responsibility

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 398-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Morris
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Home State ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
State Rights ◽  
Special Responsibility

Since the un’s 2005 adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the five permanent members (P5) of the organisation’s Security Council have been burdened with a special dual responsibility, entailing a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security, and a special responsibility to assist those imperilled by the mass atrocity crimes of their home state. The tensions which can arise within this dual responsibility is a largely under-explored aspect of the R2P literature. But consideration of it helps explain why, despite differing views over how best to balance individual and state rights, at times accentuated by clashing interests, the P5 have nevertheless found common R2P ground, most particularly in their largely concerted opposition to the idea of a ‘responsibility not to veto’ R2P-related resolutions within the Council.

scholarly journals The Relationship between the Un Security Council and General Assembly in Matters of International Peace and Security

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel D. White
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the division of competence between the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly concerning matters of international peace and security but placed within the context of the prohibition on the use of force. Although the Security Council can authorize the use of force by states, what is not clear is whether the General Assembly can recommend that states take military action. The chapter considers the conundrum faced by the United Nations with respect to an imminent and catastrophic use of force or act of egregious violence, when the UN Security Council is deadlocked because of the lack of agreement between the permanent members. It discusses the debate over the legality of the (in)famous Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 within the context of the emerging principle of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as well as within existing principles of international law.

Libya

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Adams
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Civilian Protection ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Complex Mass ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
First Time ◽  
Do So

In March 2011, for the first time in its history, the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle was invoked by the UN Security Council while imposing coercive military measures against a UN Member State without its consent. However, neither the ferocity of the subsequent diplomatic debate around R2P, nor the intensity of the current crisis in post-Gadhafi Libya, should distract us from the fact that Resolutions 1970 and 1973 constituted an appropriate response to a complex mass atrocity situation. The problem was in the disputed implementation of the civilian protection mandate. This chapter argues that when prevention fails, most future R2P cases needing coercive responses, including military force, will continue to require both coercion and consent, with legal authorization of the Security Council and active dialogue about how a state can best uphold its responsibility to protect and how the international community can both assist and compel them to do so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document