A conceptual safari: Africa and R2P

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolanda Spies ◽  
Patrick Dzimiri
Keyword(s):  
Human Security ◽  
International Community ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Critical Stage ◽  
Doctrinal Development ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Key Concepts

The Responsibility to Protect is a new human security paradigm that re-conceptualizes state sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right. Its seminal endorsement by the 2005 World Summit has however not consolidated the intellectual parameters of the norm. Neither has it succeeded in galvanizing R2P's doctrinal development; hence the January 2009 appeal by the UN secretary-general for the international community to operationalize R2P at the doctrinal level, in addition to at institutional and policy levels. R2P represents a critical stage in the debate on intervention for human protection purposes, but its key concepts require more exploration. Africa is a uniquely placed stakeholder in R2P on account of its disproportionate share of humanitarian crises and because Africans have played key roles in conceptualizing the norm. The continent should therefore not just offer an arena for, but indeed take the lead in, the conceptual journey that R2P's doctrinal development requires.Spanish La responsabilidad de proteger es un nuevo paradigma de seguridad humana que reconceptualiza la soberanía del Estado como una responsabilidad en lugar de un derecho. Pese al respaldo inicial que obtuvo en la Cumbre Mundial de 2005, los parámetros intelectuales de esta norma no se han consolidado. En esta cumbre tampoco se logró fortalecer el desarrollo de la doctrina del R2P (Responsibility to Protect), por lo que se produjo un llamado en enero de 2009 por parte del secretario general de la ONU para poner en práctica el nivel de la doctrina del R2P, además de los niveles institucional y político. La R2P representa una etapa crítica en el debate sobre la intervención con fines de protección humana, pero sus conceptos clave requieren más profundización. África tiene una posición única en la R2P dada su parte desproporcionada en las crisis humanitarias y porque los africanos han tenido un papel clave en la conceptualización de la norma. Por ello, el continente debería no sólo ofrecer un espacio, sino de hecho tomar la delantera en el trazado conceptual que requiere el desarrollo de la doctrina de la R2P.French Le «devoir de protection» est un nouveau paradigme de la sécurité humaine qui redéfinit la souveraineté de l'État comme une responsabilité plutôt que comme un droit. Cependant, lors du Sommet Mondial de 2005 les paramètres du concept n'ont pas été consolidés. Ce sommet n'a pas non plus réussi à activer le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection (en anglais «Responsibility to Protect» ou «R2P»), d'où l'appel lancé en janvier 2009 par le Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies à la communauté internationale pour qu'elle rende le «devoir de protection» opérationnel à un niveau doctrinal en plus des niveaux institutionnel et politique. Le devoir de protection représente un moment critique du débat sur les interventions ayant pour but la protection humaine, mais ses concepts méritent une analyse encore plus approfondie. En matière de devoir de protection, l'Afrique est une partie prenante incomparable, du fait de sa part disproportionnée de crises humanitaires, mais aussi parce que les Africains ont joué un rôle clé dans la conceptualisation de ce e norme-là. Dans ces conditions, le continent africain ne devrait-il pas, non seulement offrir le terrain d'étude, mais aussi prendre la tête dans le cheminement conceptuel que le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection exige ?

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.

scholarly journals The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1080-1102
Author(s):  
Robin Dunford ◽  
Michael Neu
Keyword(s):  
Recent Literature ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Structural Prevention ◽  
The Face

In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.

R2P or Not R2P? More Statebuilding, Less Responsibility

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chandler
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on the report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 'Implementing the Responsibility to Protect', which was released on 12 January 2009. The report was written as a response to 'one of the cardinal challenges of our time, as posed in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome: operationalizing the responsibility to protect'. The forum seeks to provide a range of perspectives on the report. It features contributions from Jennifer Welsh, Hugo Slim, David Chandler and Monica Serrano, and it concludes with a response from Special Advisor to the Secretary-General Edward Luck.

Framing the Responsibility to Protect

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Nackers
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
International Community ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Dominant Discourse ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
The Government ◽  
Outcome Document

The Responsibility to Protect (r2p), as enshrined in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, aims to protect populations from the commission of mass atrocities. Yet both Sri Lankan government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (ltte) forces killed thousands of civilians during the conclusion of Eelam War Four in Sri Lanka, in spite of the adoption of r2p by the Sri Lankan government. In this article, I argue that these atrocities occurred with little involvement on the part of the international community to stop them, in large part due to existing international political dynamics, which the framing efforts of the Sri Lankan government played upon. The government was able to determine the dominant discourse on the conflict and portrayed it as part of the War on Terror. This facilitated states in supporting the government in the conflict, while diminishing criticism from actors that may otherwise have been more supportive of the invocation of r2p.

Turning Words into Deeds? The Implementation of the 'Responsibility to Protect'

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Welsh
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on the report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 'Implementing the Responsibility to Protect', which was released on 12 January 2009. The report was written as a response to 'one of the cardinal challenges of our time, as posed in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome: operationalizing the responsibility to protect'. The forum seeks to provide a range of perspectives on the report. It features contributions from Jennifer Welsh, Hugo Slim, David Chandler and Monica Serrano, and it concludes with a response from Special Advisor to the Secretary-General Edward Luck.

The Responsibility to Protect and its Critics: Explaining the Consensus

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Commission ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Member States ◽  
Small Minority ◽  
The Third ◽  
Pillar Structure ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Outcome Document

AbstractWhile critics have claimed that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a North-South polarising issue and is therefore controversial, this is a deliberate misrepresentation in a rhetorical war led by a small minority of UN member states. The first section of this article briefly reviews the evolution of this emerging norm from its inception in the 2001 report by the International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (ICISS), to its endorsement in 2005 by more than 150 heads of states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, to its more recent configuration in a three-pillar structure. The next part seeks to identify the main criticisms that have been levelled at R2P. It touches on some of the myths and allegations that have long accompanied R2P, as well as on the chief legitimate concerns underlying the shift towards implementation. The third and concluding section briefly touches upon the impact of the interventions in Libya and Côte D'Ivoire upon the evolving R2P consensus, and critically assesses the implications of a normative strategy that has put a premium on unanimity and unqualified consensus.

Why ‘Never Again’ and R2P Did Not Work in Myanmar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ivan Šimonović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
International Community ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
The Future ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Abstract This intervention discusses the reasons why the international community failed to prevent atrocity crimes against the Rohingyas in Myanmar. It draws on the author’s personal experience as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights from 2010 to 2016 and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect from 2016 to 2018. It lays out five major ingredients of the failure to prevent atrocities in Myanmar and identifies three key lessons that must be learned to avoid continued failures into the future.

Values versus Power: Responsible Sovereignty as Struggle in Zimbabwe

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Hugo Slim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on the report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 'Implementing the Responsibility to Protect', which was released on 12 January 2009. The report was written as a response to 'one of the cardinal challenges of our time, as posed in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome: operationalizing the responsibility to protect'. The forum seeks to provide a range of perspectives on the report. It features contributions from Jennifer Welsh, Hugo Slim, David Chandler and Monica Serrano, and it concludes with a response from Special Advisor to the Secretary-General Edward Luck.

scholarly journals Peacebuilding and the Responsibility to Rebuild

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ramesh Thakur
Keyword(s):  
Political Leadership ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
First Century ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Distinctive Features

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, encompassing the three symbiotically linked responsibilities to prevent, respond and rebuild, was unanimously adopted at the United Nations World Summit in 2005. The responsibility to rebuild needs to be re-elevated to prominence as an integral component of R2P: conceptually, normatively and operationally; and its institutional homes in the UN system and the Secretary-General’s role clarified. The 2009 three pillar formulation of R2P works well in most contexts, but is problematic in that it buries and loses sight of the critical importance of the original ICISS third ‘responsibility to rebuild’ and reconstruct war-raved societies to the point of being viable and self-sustaining once again. Because R2P was adopted at a world summit, I begin by highlighting the distinctive attributes of summit diplomacy. Next, I derive some key lessons from the major international interventions of the twenty-first century and recall the context in which R2P was originally formulated in order to highlight the distinctive features of its contribution to international policy. I then describe three dimensions of the responsibility to rebuild – recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation – and the strategies and steps needed for the rebuilding agenda. Recalling that Security Council authorization of R2P coercive operations is a non-negotiable prerequisite, I suggest that the responsibility to rebuild can be reintroduced and implemented through the administrative and political leadership roles of the Secretary-General.

How the Responsibility to Protect Influences the Security Council’s Powers, Limits and Dynamic

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa-Marie Komp
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Council Work

In 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was adopted in the World Summit Outcome with the aim to enable an efficient response to humanitarian crises by making the Security Council “work better”. The swift reaction to the events in Libya sparked the hope that the new concept enabled the Security Council to function this smoothly in the future. The debates within the Council in relation to the NATO intervention demonstrate that the Responsibility to Protect was able to contribute to this success in certain, limited ways. At the same time, these debates were herald to the problems experienced in relation to the events in Syria. Through an analyses of the debates concerning Libya within the Council, debates in other UN bodies related to the new concept, State practice, and relevant documents, this article will outline the potential of the Responsibility to Protect to make the Council “work better”, as well as its limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document