What Is a Safe Area? Definition, Typology and Empirical Cases

In today’s conflicts, the number of people needing physical protection is at an all-time high. Often, protection is provided by the creation of safe areas. Although the notion largely disappeared after the Srebrenica genocide, safe areas have continued to exist empirically. Recently, safe areas had a minor revival in academic analysis and in the political rhetoric vis-à-vis Syria. Yet, fundamental gaps remain as it is still unclear what a safe area actually is and whether all safe areas function in the same way. This article develops a precise definition and comprehensive typology of safe areas. The definition is based on considerations regarding geographical limitation and location, target group, kind of provided protection, involved actors, and effective existence. Furthermore, four ideal types of safe areas are identified based on a division between belligerents’ consent/international presence and different geographical sizes. This is complemented by an extensive collection of empirical cases since 1900.

‘No Ideas but in Things’: The Responsibility to Protect as Assemblage

This article establishes the need to engage with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as an assemblage in order to reckon with how material influences shape its politics. Through an analysis of the 2011 United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervention in Libya, the paper illustrates how particular tools and techniques influence R2P. The example shows how the original impetus of the intervention was mediated and translated by the particular collection of elements brought together to realise the intervention in Libya. Rather than argue this illustrates how R2P is defined by specific techniques, the article situates and then builds upon the extant literature by labelling R2P as an assemblage. In this way the article highlights how material influences and the importance of mediation are missed in the extant literature. Further, it concludes by arguing for a more productive research agenda that foregrounds empirical engagements with specific practices in order to develop the current literature.

Trading Freedoms for Protection: Gender and Localised Protection in Libya

Much has been written on the 2011 intervention in Libya and its implications to the R2P principle, but we know less about the lived experience of protection in a context where the post-intervention responsibility for protecting civilians was quickly transferred to the interim authorities who had limited governance capacity. This has resulted in ‘localised protection’ where militias, tribal elders, and family members constitute the main actors providing protection to their respective communities. Although this is in line with the growing emphasis on local ownership underwriting UN and donor discourse, a troubling upshot of the localised protection is that it often disempowers, and at times subjects the protected to further insecurity and violence. The aim of this analysis is to explore this dynamic of protection and insecurity. I draw on feminist theorising of the masculine protection logic and argue that civilians in Libya negotiate multiple, gendered protection bargains that often produce perverse outcomes, by subjecting the ‘protected’ to renewed or increased insecurities, rather than reducing them.

Cultural Destruction and Mass Atrocity Crimes: Strengthening Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Attacks against or affecting cultural heritage have been prosecuted exclusively as war crimes at both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court. However, this jurisprudence has limited the very concept of cultural heritage to solely tangible or physical manifestations of culture, excluding the numerous intangible cultural expressions of a given collective. This has precluded a constitutive link between attacks on cultural elements and crimes against humanity and genocide, and ignored the myriad ways in which the destruction of cultural heritage can adversely affect protected groups, including the disintegration of their collective identity. The rights of minority and indigenous populations such as the Uighurs in China can be better protected if acts damaging culture, including intangible cultural heritage, are inherently linked to crimes against humanity and genocide as this will compel states to better acknowledge, address, and prevent these crimes, in line with their obligations under the Responsibility to Protect.

The Failure of the International Community to Apply R2P and Atrocity Prevention in Myanmar

The case of Myanmar has become one of the most glaring examples for the failure of the international community to realise the promise made with the adoption of the responsibility to protect (R2P) norm in 2005: ‘Never again’ has turned into again and again. A mix of unwillingness and inability to prevent atrocity crimes has in Myanmar over the past ten years led to several instances of atrocity crimes and genocidal violence against the Rohingya. Most recently, the military coup of February 2021 has showcased that the notion of an international community exercising a responsibility to protect the population of Myanmar against crimes against humanity and other atrocity crimes dissembles into a few states openly shielding the perpetrators, a few condemning and countering the newest cycle of violence, and many silent bystanders to the ongoing atrocities. This article discusses the role of the R2P norm in the case of Myanmar and introduces the different contributions that comprise the special issue on Myanmar and the failure of R2P.

The International Court of Justice and the Responsibility to Protect: Learning from the Case of The Gambia v. Myanmar

It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.