The Status of the “Responsibility to Protect (Rtop)“ Doctrine in Light of the Conflicts in Libya and Syria

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 495
Author(s):  
Petra Perisic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
The One ◽  
Outcome Document

In 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced a new doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)”, which signified an obligation of each state to protect its population from mass atrocities occurring in that state, as well as an obligation on the part of international community to offer such protection if the state in question fails to fulfill its duty. The doctrine of RtoP was subsequently endorsed by states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, though it was formulated more restrictively in comparison to the 2001 Report. In 2011 a conflict broke out in Libya between its ruler Muammar Gaddafi and the protesters against his rule. Government forces were brutal in their attempt to quell the protests and it was not long before different international bodies started to report mass violations of human rights. Surprisingly, the UN Security Council was not deadlocked by veto and passed the Resolution 1973, which invoked the RtoP principle and authorized the use of force. Supporters of RtoP hailed such an application of the principle and believed that the case of Libya was just a beginning of a successful bringing RtoP to life. Such predictions turned out to be premature. Not long after the Libyan conflict, the one in Syria began. Although Syrian people was faced with the same humanitarian disaster as Libyan did, the Security Council could not agree on passing of the resolution which would authorize the use of force to halt human rights violations. Two crises are being analyzed, as well as reasons behind such a disparate reaction of the Security Council in very similar circumstances.

THE LEGALITY OF THE NATO BOMBING IN LIBYA

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geir Ulfstein ◽  
Hege Føsund Christiansen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
Nato Bombing

AbstractOn 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 authorizing member states to take forceful measures to protect Libyan civilians. Clearly NATO actions to protect civilians were within the mandate. But the authors claim that operations aiming at overthrowing the Qaddafi regime were illegal use of force. The overstepping of the mandate may have a negative effect on the credibility of the responsibility to protect in future gross human rights violations.

Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Bellamy
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
High Level

The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) played an important role in shaping the world's response to actual and threatened atrocities in Libya. Not least, the adoption of Resolution 1973 by the UN Security Council on May 17, 2011, approving a no-fly zone over Libya and calling for “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, reflected a change in the Council's attitude toward the use of force for human protection purposes; and the role played by the UN's new Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect points toward the potential for this new capacity to identify threats of mass atrocities and to focus the UN's attention on preventing them. Given the reluctance of both the Security Council and the wider UN membership even to discuss RtoP in the years immediately following the 2005 World Summit—the High-level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the General Assembly that gave birth to RtoP—these two facts suggest that significant progress has been made thanks to the astute stewardship of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is personally committed to the principle. Where it was once a term of art employed by a handful of like-minded countries, activists, and scholars, but regarded with suspicion by much of the rest of the world, RtoP has become a commonly accepted frame of reference for preventing and responding to mass atrocities.

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.

Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
General Decline ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Way

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.

The Genesis of R2P

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Cater ◽  
David M. Malone
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Human Security ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
The World ◽  
High Level ◽  
Early Human ◽  
Outcome Document

This chapter addresses the evolution of the responsibility to protect concept from September 1999 to its adoption in the World Summit Outcome Document of September 2005. It covers Kofi Annan’s ‘dilemma of intervention’, some early human security initiatives by Canada including the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and its report The Responsibility to Protect which first articulated the moniker as well as the concept, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, the negotiations and Outcome Document of the World Summit, and the early incorporation of protection of civilians within Security Council resolutions. Throughout this narrative, the importance of sustained advocacy by key individuals—including Kofi Annan, Lloyd Axworthy, and Gareth Evans among others—is presented as vital to the evolution (in theory and in practice) of the responsibility to protect.

Intervention by Invitation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

This chapter examines the debate concerning a state’s intervention in internal armed conflicts based on invitation, either from the government or from a rebel group fighting against the government. It looks at the issues that arise from intervention by invitation, particularly those relating to the territorial integrity of the state, the status of the actors involved, the nature of the consent, and implications for international law in general and for politics and human rights in particular. The chapter first considers the traditional view of intervention by invitation and the recent challenges to that view. It then discusses the negative equality principle as it applies to intervention in civil wars, as well as the link between intervention by invitation and democratic legitimacy. It also analyses the position of the UN Security Council on intervention by invitation.

Indian Perspectives on the ‘Responsibility to Protect'

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-316
Author(s):  
Akanksha Singh
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
Case Basis

The concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) took shape to refine the contested concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’. In the initial phase, the concept of R2P did not receive enthusiastic endorsement. Developing countries including India perceived it as a new body with the old spirit and likened it with the concept of humanitarian intervention, and this was reinforced by the US-led war against Iraq in 2003. However, the 2005 World Summit proved to be a watershed in the evolution of R2P, just as it is a landmark to understand an important phase of India’s approach to the idea. It would not be accurate to characterize India as a determined nay-sayer on R2P endorsement, particularly in view of the widely known priority India attached at the World Summit to the question of United Nations (UN) Security Council enlargement. Eventually, by 2009 (with the introduction of ‘three- pillar principles’ of R2P), India became a major proponent for the cautious and legitimate implementation of R2P. However, the experiences gained from Libya made India become a voice of caution in invoking forcible options under the R2P principle in Syria. In this article, the attempt has been made to articulate various permutations and combinations regarding India’s evolving approach to R2P on a case-by-case basis.

From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Mills ◽  
Cian O’Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The World

In contrast with humanitarian access or the provision of humanitarian assistance, humanitarian intervention is commonly defined as the threat or use of force by a state to prevent or end widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied. In support of their cause, advocates of humanitarian intervention often draw upon and reference the authority of the notional “just war.” The four main ways by which humanitarian intervention has been connected to the idea of the just war relate to the ideals of self-determination, punishment, responsibility, and conditional sovereignty. For a humanitarian intervention to be considered legitimate, there must be a just cause for intervention; the use of force must be a last resort; it must meet the standard of proportionality; and there must be a good likelihood that the use of force will contribute to a positive humanitarian outcome. The historical practice of humanitarian intervention can be traced from the nineteenth century to the recognition of the Responsibility to Protect by the World Summit in 2005 and its application in Darfur. Major conceptual debates surrounding humanitarian intervention include the problematic relation between sovereignty and human rights, the legal status of intervention, the issue of multilateralism versus unilateralism, and the quest for criteria for intervention.

Responsibility to Protect, Polarity, and Society

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Murray ◽  
Tom Keating
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
World Order ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
Other World ◽  
Emerging Powers

Robert Keating and Tom Murray argue that the implementation of R2P has failed despite the rhetorical consensus around R2P over the last decade. They suggest that the behaviour of the US and its NATO allies are partly to blame. These powers ignored the UN Security Council over Kosovo, which other world powers such as the BRICs took as an affront and a challenge. Normative defiance to the liberal world order was the reaction: Russia in particular became less willing to support humanitarian intervention than it had been throughout the 1990s. Similarly, in Libya, NATO refused to conform to the limitations on the intervention imposed by UNSC Resolution 1973. This weakened confidence in the Security Council’s ability to manage interventions, further undermining support for such operations generally. Thus the manner in which Western powers have sought to implement R2P has alienated the emerging powers on whose support successful R2P implementation depends.

scholarly journals ESTABLISHING THE STATUS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P) AS CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS ROLE IN PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-80
Author(s):  
Sigar Aji Poerana ◽  
Irawati Handayani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Status ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
The One ◽  
Paradigm Shifting

ABSTRACTResponsibility to Protect (R2P) was unanimously adopted and is articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of General Assembly Resolution A/Res/60/1. On the one hand, R2P has presumed a new name for humanitarian intervention that is still debatable in international law. On the other hand, R2P attempts to connect State’s sovereignty and responsibility to protect human rights. R2P recognizes State’s sovereignty while bestowing States the primary responsibility to protect human rights and allowing the international community to intervene if States fail to fulfill their obligation. Considering the original idea of R2P is to protect human rights, the essential issue that should be addressed is the position of R2P as source of international law. Suppose States should implement the R2P without a prior commitment to a treaty, which sources of international law that can underlie the legal basis for R2P? This article argues that R2P can fulfill the criteria of customary international law based on the notion of ‘Grotian moment,’ which ‘compensates’ R2P from the traditional burden of state practice and opinio juris since R2P is a paradigm-shifting development in which new rules and doctrines of custom emerge with unusual rapidity and acceptance. Further, this article also highlights the importance of responsibility to prevent, which is one of the pillars of R2P, and argues that commitment to prevent is the “heart” of R2P. It is argued that such responsibility is vital in saving States from avoidable conflicts and from the trouble in responding to mass atrocities and rebuilding the affected population. Keywords: Customary International Law, Grotian Moment, Responsibility to Protect, Responsibility to Prevent, Sources of International Law ABSTRAKResponsibility to Protect (R2P) diadopsi dengan suara bulat dan dicantumkan dalam paragraf 138 dan 139 Resolusi Majelis Umum A/Res/60/1. Di satu sisi, R2P dianggap sebagai nama baru untuk intervensi kemanusiaan yang masih diperdebatkan dalam hukum internasional. Di sisi lain, R2P berupaya untuk menjembatani kedaulatan negara dan tanggung jawab untuk melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). R2P tetap mengakui kedaulatan negara dan memberikan tanggung jawab utama kepada negara untuk melindungi HAM, namun mengizinkan masyarakat internasional untuk mengintervensi jika negara gagal memenuhi kewajibannya. Mengingat ide awal R2P adalah untuk melindungi HAM, maka isu penting yang harus ditelaah adalah posisi R2P sebagai sumber hukum internasional. Misalnya, negara harus mengimplementasikan R2P tanpa komitmen terlebih dahulu terhadap suatu perjanjian internasional, sumber hukum internasional manakah yang dapat mendasari pelaksanaan R2P? Artikel ini berpendapat bahwa R2P dapat memenuhi kriteria hukum kebiasaan internasional berdasarkan konsep ‘Grotian moment', yang 'mengkompensasi' R2P dari beban tradisional state practice dan opinio juris karena R2P merupakan perkembangan yang mengubah paradigma yang mengakibatkan aturan baru dan doktrin kebiasaan muncul dengan laju dan penerimaan yang luar biasa. Lebih lanjut, artikel ini juga menyoroti pentingnya tanggung jawab untuk mencegah, yang merupakan salah satu pilar dari R2P, dan berpendapat bahwa komitmen untuk mencegah adalah esensi dari R2P. Tanggung jawab untuk mencegah sangat penting dalam menjauhkan negara dari konflik yang dapat dihindari dan dari kesulitan dalam merespon krisis kemanusiaan dan membangun kembali penduduk yang terkena dampaknya. Kata Kunci: Grotian Moment, Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional, Tanggung Jawab untuk Melindungi, Tanggung Jawab untuk Mencegah, Sumber Hukum Internasional

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document