To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Journal articles on the topic 'Responsibility to Protect (R2P)'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Responsibility to Protect (R2P).'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Holmes, John. "Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 6, no. 2 (2014): 126–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00602003.
Full textAbstract:
Where does the humanitarian community sit in relation to continuing debates about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? The third pillar of R2P is often seen as the practical manifestation of an older idea of humanitarian intervention, given much attention after the Rwandan genocide and Srebrenica. Many humanitarians have long been reticent about the idea of so-called humanitarian intervention and, thus, of R2P. This article examines the logic behind this reticence and explores the practical relationship between R2P and humanitarian action. In particular, it focuses on three major crises during Holmes’s time as Emergency Relief Coordination – Darfur, Sri Lanka and Myanmar – and goes on to consider briefly how and why R2P has been invoked, or not, in the more recent crises of Libya and Syria. It concludes with reflections about the implications for the future.
2
Jacob, Cecilia. "State Responsibility and Prevention in the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 7, no. 1 (2015): 56–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00701004.
Full textAbstract:
This article responds to the 2013 un Secretary General’s (unsg) annual report on the Responsibility to Protect (r2p), titled ‘State Responsibility and Prevention’. The orientation of r2p as a tool for addressing risk factors for atrocity crimes in domestic contexts indicates a conceptual deepening and widening of r2p to provide states with an atrocity prevention lens within their jurisdiction. This article examines state policies and practices of protecting civilians during communal violence in India, arguing that progress on the First Pillar of r2p necessitates a conceptual shift at both the international level and at the domestic level. The politics surrounding communal violence in India provides an important case study to question the salience of r2p norms for domestic practices of state responsibility and prevention that are currently being promoted in the unsg agenda on r2p, and considers the implications this report has for states committed to a narrow interpretation of r2p.
3
Eckhard, Frederic. "Whose Responsibility to Protect?" Global Responsibility to Protect 3, no. 1 (2011): 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598411x549495.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe 2009 challenge in the United Nations General Assembly to the Responsibility to Protect was a warning call. This landmark piece of human rights legislation makes a lot of governments nervous; some of them would want to wipe R2P off the books. It might be worthwhile therefore to review how it came about and ask what its importance is to you. R2P had many “fathers”, but one important one was UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Seared by the UN experience in Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda and the persecution of the Kosovars by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, Annan asked the International Peace Academy to look into the basis in international law for humanitarian intervention. They couldn't find one. Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy then stepped in and set up a commission that did in a report called e Responsibility to Protect. Annan carefully laid the groundwork for international acceptance of the principle. He created a high-level panel to study security threats in the 21 st century and named former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans to it. Evans co-chaired the Canadian panel. Annan's panel endorsed R2P. With that crucial backing, he put R2P to the General Assembly, which, against all odds, voted in favor of it in 2005, making R2P international law. Humanitarian intervention is in fact a threat to national sovereignty. But so are most international treaties. Governments trade on their sovereignty when it is in their interest to do so. On R2P they did so again. Why should it matter to you? Just remember the Holocaust.
4
Peters, Anne. "The security Council's Responsibility to Protect." International Organizations Law Review 8, no. 1 (2011): 15–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157237411x584075.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe objective of this paper is to spell out the legal consequences of the concept "responsibility to protect" (R2P), postulated as a binding legal principle of international law, for the Security Council and its members. The paper is a thought experiment, because the binding legal force of R2P is not settled. My argument is that, once R2P is accepted as a full-fledged legal principle, the Security Council (and its members) would be under a legal obligation to authorize or to take sufficiently robust action in R2P situations. The paper then discusses the problems engendered by the acceptance of such a material obligation and suggests a procedural obligation to justify inaction instead.
5
Singh, Akanksha. "Indian Perspectives on the ‘Responsibility to Protect'." International Studies 57, no. 3 (2020): 296–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020881720930605.
Full textAbstract:
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.
6
TACHEVA, BLAGOVESTA, and GARRETT WALLACE BROWN. "Global constitutionalism and the responsibility to protect." Global Constitutionalism 4, no. 3 (2015): 428–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2045381715000155.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThere is recent scholarship suggesting that theResponsibility to Protect(R2P) has now emerged as a master concept in relation to responding to mass atrocity crimes and that the R2P can further be seen as representative of an emerging global constitutional norm. In critical response, this article provides the first attempt to systematically investigate R2P’s relationship with global constitutionalisation as well as to explore its wider implication with regard to global constitutionalism. In doing so, the article examines existing discussions of R2P and global constitutionalism, tracks the normative evolution of R2P in order to determine its current ‘stage’ ofnorm diffusion, and further attempts to locate the extent to which the R2P can be perceived as also part of a process of global constitutionalisation. From this analysis the article concludes that although the R2P could be labelled as, at best, a weak emerging norm, it fails to meet the more demanding signifier of an emerging constitutional norm and that there is further evidence to suggest that the R2P might be better understood as a stalled or degenerating norm.
7
Chandler, David. "R2P or Not R2P? More Statebuilding, Less Responsibility." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 1 (2010): 161–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x12602515137617.
Full textAbstract:
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.
8
Nackers, Kimberly. "Framing the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 7, no. 1 (2015): 81–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00701005.
Full textAbstract:
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.
9
Hassler, Sabine. "Peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect." Journal of International Peacekeeping 14, no. 1-2 (2010): 134–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187541110x12592205205739.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the debate surrounding the responsibility to protect [R2P] with particular reference to the use of peacekeeping forces in that regard. Post-Cold War, human protection had expanded into a matter of international concern. Yet, where formerly humanitarian intervention was the mot du jour, a change in conceptual vocabulary led to the introduction of R2P and to a redefinition of sovereignty. Accordingly, the primary responsibility to protect its citizens rests with the sovereign state but, owing to international solidarity, the residual responsibility rests with the international community. Contextually, R2P is embedded in a continuum of responsibilities: prevent, react and rebuild. Proponents of the concept already see a norm in development. Still, divisions and confusion remain concerning the concept’s legal basis, its scope and its parameters. This is particularly relevant in view of peacekeeping forces, which have been increasingly deployed for humanitarian purposes. Because of ill-defined mandates and an overextension of resources, however, traditional peacekeeping is no longer suitable, lacking the resources, the personnel and the necessary expertise. To be able to fulfil the goals of R2P, peacekeeping will have to be redefined and the forces equipped with more robust mandates or fail.
10
Gärtner, Heinz. "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Libya." Austrian Review of International and European Law Online 16, no. 1 (2014): 106–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15736512-90000100.
Full text
11
Pratiwi, Fadhila Inas. "Lessons Learned from Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya." Jurnal Global & Strategis 11, no. 2 (2018): 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/jgs.11.2.2017.97-107.
Full textAbstract:
As a new principle in the world, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an obligation on the part of the international community and on the part of the states to protect civilians from mass atrocities by doing several actions like giving international aids, reducing poverty, supporting peacebuilding, educating the population, until military intervention. However, military intervention under R2P norm in Libya produce a counterproductive result which then led the country into civil war. From this background, therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the implementation of R2P in Libya into four types of lessons learned. The first lesson, R2P is corrupted by great powers that make the military intervention far from its mandate. The second lesson is the inconsistency practice from an R2P military intervention which led to the question of credibility of military intervention in Libya. The third lesson is diplomacy must be prioritized rather than military intervention since that there is an R2P success story without military intervention. The last is the recommendation to implement Responsibility while Protecting (RWP) principle in the R2P framework.Keywords: Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Libya, Diplomacy, Military Intervention, Responsibility while Protecting
12
Pattison, James. "Mapping the Responsibilities to Protect: A Typology of International Duties." Global Responsibility to Protect 7, no. 2 (2015): 190–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00702006.
Full textAbstract:
The international responsibility to protect is the most important and value-added element of the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. However, the existing accounts of the international responsibilities of R2P are often fairly ad hoc and not clearly systematised, largely focusing on particular responsibilities. Consequently, this article provides a typology of the various international responsibilities required by the R2P. In particular, it presents six types of international responsibility to protect: (1) the responsibility to undertake direct action; (2) the responsibility to support direct action; (3) the responsibility to authorise; (4) the responsibility not to act; (5) the responsibility to advance R2P; and (6) the responsibility to reform. In doing so, it will clarify how these responsibilities hang together and highlight underappreciated responsibilities.
13
Roff, Heather M. "Covert Actions and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 7, no. 2 (2015): 167–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00702005.
Full textAbstract:
Fifteen years on, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is still facing questions over its content, scope and attendant obligations. Recent conflicts in Syria, Ukraine and Iraq show, how, when and if states intervene is a matter of political will and calculation. Yet the question of political will remains largely unaddressed, and many ignore the conceptual and practical distance between stating that the international community should encourage and assist states to fulfill R2P obligations and requiring third parties to use diplomatic, humanitarian or ‘other’ means to protect populations when states fail to do so. I propose we acknowledge this distance and minimize it through covert action. Embracing the reality that some states cannot intervene due to political constraints entails that we can theorize about other ways to uphold R2P. Moreover, covert action involves a range of means and types of targets and is a flexible option for R2P.
14
Landsberg, Chris. "Pax South Africana and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 436–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519570.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis essay examines the leading role adopted by the South African governments of Nelson Mandela, abo Mbeki, and Jacob Zuma to promote R2P between 1994 and 2010. In response to the sociopolitical oppression and devastation wrought by apartheid between 1948 and 1990, South African governments since 1994 have played an activist role in developing new norms in international affairs. Describing the South African posture on R2P as one of engagement and 'quiet diplomacy', the essay notes that the country has pushed for multilateral institutions to become the major repositories of the R2P norm. Within Africa, South Africa was instrumental in negotiating the continent's shift of position on the R2P norm from one of 'non-intervention' to one of 'non-indifference'. South Africa has also sought to implement R2P through political processes and negotiations rather than through sanctions and the use of force—an engagist stance that the country adopted during its controversial two years on the UN Security Council (2007–2008), contrary to the tougher approach recommended by powerful Western members of the Security Council. Emphasis is placed on the capacity constraints with which South Africa continues to struggle, as it seeks to operationalise its position on R2P.
15
Pak, Hui-Chol, Hye-Ryon Son, and Son-Kyong Jong. "Analysis on the Legal Nature of ‘Responsibility to Protect’." International Studies 57, no. 3 (2020): 279–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020881720926767.
Full textAbstract:
At present, some states are undertaking military interventions in different parts of the world, contending the ‘legitimacy’ of their i006Evocation of responsibility to protect civilians from a humanitarian crisis. Discussions at international forums concerning the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are inconclusive about its legal nature and application. While some scholars and states support the doctrine of R2P as being legitimate, others challenge or take a rather sceptical view. Divergent views seem to be originating from its incompatibilities with the rules of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. What is controversial is that the supporters of R2P are mainly from the West, while objections to R2P are from developing countries mainly from West Asia or Africa. This raises concerns about the possibility of future applications of R2P in any of the countries in these regions or other developing countries. The article, analyses the legal nature of R2P in terms of the main principles of international law and other sources of international law and argues that the legitimacy and international legal effect of R2P are uncertain.
16
Henderson, Stacey. "The Arms Trade Treaty: Responsibility to Protect in Action?" Global Responsibility to Protect 9, no. 2 (2017): 147–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00902003.
Full textAbstract:
This paper argues that the influence of R2P can be seen in many subtle, yet significant, ways throughout the Arms Trade Treaty, from the language used to the obligations imposed on States Parties. The Arms Trade Treaty indicates that R2P is influencing decision making and contributing to the protection of populations from atrocity crimes by obliging States Parties to explicitly consider the consequences of their arms transfers. In addition, the Arms Trade Treaty has increased our understanding of R2P by confirming that R2P involves a range of measures and includes restraint by States in refusing to transfer arms in situations where atrocity crimes are being committed, which may temper concerns about R2P being rebranded as assistance.
17
Morris, Justin. "The Responsibility to Protect and the Great Powers: The Tensions of Dual Responsibility." Global Responsibility to Protect 7, no. 3-4 (2015): 398–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00704009.
Full textAbstract:
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.
18
REINOLD, THERESA. "The responsibility to protect – much ado about nothing?" Review of International Studies 36, S1 (2010): 55–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510000446.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractDespite its newness, the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) looks back at a stellar career. It has been the subject of numerous conferences and academic publications and has been affirmed by the major UN bodies. Indeed, if one were to assess the development of an international norm by the amount of academic attention and general rhetorical support it enjoys, one could be inclined to believe that the responsibility to protect is rapidly evolving into a norm of customary international law.This article subjects the R2P hype to critical scrutiny and asks probing questions about R2P's viability as a norm. Beneath the thin veneer of rhetorical acceptance of R2P lies a range of hotly disputed issues – in particular but not exclusively regarding the concept's implications for the use of force – which are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. In this article I examine R2P's potential to ‘ripen’ into an international norm. I argue that in the absence of an intersubjective consensus about what R2P actuallymeans, the concept's chances to ‘harden’ into a norm of customary international law are remote. I posit that R2P cannot be considered a ‘new norm’ or an ‘emerging norm’ as it is frequently called, because the vast majority of states simply does not want to be legally bound to save strangers in remote regions of the world.
19
Melgaard, Peter, and Liselotte Odgaard. "Kina og ‘the Responsibility to Protect’." Udenrigs, no. 2 (October 1, 2015): 29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/udenrigs.v0i2.118361.
Full text
20
Welsh, Jennifer M. "Norm Contestation and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 365–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00504002.
Full textAbstract:
Drawing on international relations theory, this article seeks to both account for and analyze the contestation that continues to surround the norm of R2P. It begins in Section I by arguing that while the 2005 Summit Outcome Document – as an example of ‘institutionalization’ – provided greater precision about the source, scope, and bearer of the responsibility to protect, there is continuing debate about when the international community’s remedial role in protection can and should be activated. In order to understand this reality – which is a challenge to positivist and linear accounts of normative change – we must embrace the intuitions of post-positivist constructivist scholars about the intersubjective nature of norms, and their emphasis on analyzing norms’ ‘meaning in use’. Section II demonstrates in more detail the two kinds of contestation surrounding R2P: procedural contestation concerning who (which body) should ‘own’ its development as a norm; and substantive contestation about its content. R2P is particularly susceptible to contestation, given its inherently indeterminate nature, and the erroneous tendency to measure its impact in terms of whether or not military intervention occurs in particular cases. To respond to these issues, it is argued that the norm of R2P is best conceived as a responsibility to consider a real or imminent crisis involving mass atrocity crimes - what in legal literature is sometimes called a ‘duty of conduct’. Whether or not international action actually occurs - particularly action involving military force - depends on a series of other factors. The final section addresses the challenge to constructivist scholars to be more transparent about the normative commitments that underpin their empirical studies of normative change. It argues that the contestation surrounding R2P can be better understood by giving greater attention to the normative underpinnings of contemporary critiques of the principle – most prominently those which stress the importance of sovereignty equality.
21
Deng, Francis. "From 'Sovereignty as Responsibility' to the 'Responsibility to Protect'." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 353–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519534.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis essay examines the origins and evolution of the concepts of 'sovereignty as responsibility' and the 'responsibility to protect'. In particular, it considers the role and duty of states and how ideas of sovereignty have evolved since the modern nation-state was conceived by the European Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. It then examines the responsibility of states towards their own citizens and traces the development of the R2P norm in Africa as it has related to conflict prevention, management, and resolution since the end of the Cold War. The essay further considers the responsibilities of national democratic governments in Africa and beyond. Recent developments that have widened the scope and helped the acceptance and application of the concept of 'sovereignty as responsibility' are discussed, and the essay concludes with an examination of the accountability and enforcement challenges faced by R2P.
22
BAIN, WILLIAM. "Responsibility and obligation in the ‘Responsibility to Protect’." Review of International Studies 36, S1 (2010): 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210511000106.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article takes up Louise Arbour's claim that the doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is grounded in existing obligations of international law, specifically those pertaining to the prevention and punishment of genocide. In doing so, it argues that the aspirations of the R2P project cannot be sustained by the idea of ‘responsibility’ alone. The article proceeds in arguing that the coherence of R2P depends on an unacknowledged and unarticulated theory of obligation that connects notions of culpability, blame, and accountability with the kind of preventive, punitive, and restorative action that Arbour and others advocate. Two theories of obligation are then offered, one natural the other conventional, which make this connection explicit. But the ensuing clarity comes at a cost: the naturalist account escapes the ‘real’ world to redeem the intrinsic dignity of all men and women, while the conventionalist account remains firmly tethered to the ‘real’ world in redeeming whatever dignity can be had by way of an agreement. The article concludes by arguing that the advocate of the responsibility to protect can have one or the other, but not both.
23
Adebajo, Adekeye. "Pax Nigeriana and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 414–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519561.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe essay traces the roots of R2P in African political thought—through individuals such as Kenya's Ali Mazrui, Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Tanzania's Salim Ahmed Salim, South Africa's Nelson Mandela and abo Mbeki, and Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali— and considers the bid by West Africa's regional hegemon, Nigeria, to play a leadership role on the continent in relation to the norm. It argues that the regional West African giant has exhibited a 'missionary zeal' in assuming the role of a benevolent 'older brother' responsible for protecting younger siblings—whether these are Nigeria's immediate neighbours, fellow Africans, or black people in the African Diaspora. Without Nigeria's military support and economic and political clout, the ECOWAS Ceasefire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG)—which intervened in civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s—would simply not have existed. Despite the lack of a clearly agreed UN or pan-African mandate, Nigeria's interventions - under the auspices of ECOMOG - effectively operationalised R2P in the region and eventually won continental and international support. However, Nigeria's recent foreign adventures have often been launched in the face of strong domestic opposition and a failure by military and civilian regimes to apply R2P domestically. The essay concludes by considering Nigeria's need to build a stable democracy and promote effective regional integration, if it wishes to benefit from its peacekeeping successes in the region and pursue a continued leadership role in relation to R2P.
24
Lee, Shin-wha. "The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) after Libya." Journal of International Politics 18, no. 1 (2013): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.18031/jip.2013.04.18.1.5.
Full text
25
Sarkin, Jeremy. "The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention in Africa." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 371–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519543.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis essay investigates the connection between humanitarian intervention and R2P within an historical, legal, and conceptual context. It challenges the widely held view that Africa lacks the capacity to intervene in areas of conflict and human rights violations, arguing instead that the continent possesses the will and instruments to protect human rights. The author notes that, while the UN Security Council retains the primary responsibility for promoting global peace and security, the R2P norm remains contested even within the UN. The ECOWAS interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s were initially undertaken without UN approval, but were later sanctioned by the world body. These interventions undermined the idea of state sovereignty as independence from external interventions, which had previously constrained humanitarian missions in Africa. However, the essay argues that the R2P principle was boosted by the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 to prosecute persons suspected of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or genocide. In addition, the intervention clause in the AU's Constitutive Act of 2000 supports the R2P principle while prohibiting unilateral interventions. Notwithstanding these developments, the author notes that the AU and Africa's regional bodies still have a long way to go in translating the R2P doctrine into practice.
26
Widagdo, Setyo, and Rika Kurniaty. "PRINSIP RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P) DALAM KONFLIK ISRAEL- PALESTINA: BAGAIMANA SIKAP INDONESIA?" Arena Hukum 14, no. 2 (2021): 314–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2021.01402.6.
Full textAbstract:
This article aims to discuss the Principles of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that may be applied to the conflict in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Palestine. This normative legal research using a conceptual approach and a case approach indicates that the humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict needs to be the focus of the international community, and the R2P principle may be applied as an alternative solution. Although the R2P principle is not a legal formulation, R2P plays an important role. It is recognized as an emerging norm or an obligation with a legal significance. R2P has been agreed upon and accepted by most countries globally that are members of the United Nations through UN General Assembly Resolutions. R2P assigns responsibility to the international community to help parties protect populations from the crime of genocide. Ultimately, R2P is expected to encourage states to fulfill their legal responsibilities and obligations, help build capacity to protect populations, and provide assistance to states in emergencies.
27
Welsh, Jennifer, and Maria Banda. "International Law and the Responsibility to Protect: Clarifying or Expanding States' Responsibilities?" Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 3 (2010): 213–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x500363.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Responsibility to Protect (R2P) invokes one of the most powerful moral and legal terms in contemporary international politics – namely, responsibility. The nature of the relationship between R2P and international law and morality, however, remains contested, giving rise to questions lying at the core of R2P's normative foundations. What is the source of R2P? To whom is this responsibility attributable, and under what circumstances? Does R2P give rise to legal obligations? Such questions challenge International Relations (IR) theorists to look beyond their discipline for more insightful tools and methods of analysis. In this article, we apply a broadened theoretical framework to explain the ongoing controversy about R2P. In Part II, we borrow tools from moral philosophy to identify the source and the bearer of the responsibility to protect in today's international society. In Part III, we draw on international legal scholarship to analyse whether R2P has emerged as a 'new' norm of customary international law. We find that international endorsement of R2P has helped to clarify existing obligations in international law, but that intrinsic ambiguities in its articulation currently limit R2P's capacity to entrench new obligations for states to protect strangers. At the same time, our finding that R2P is an example of 'soft law' leads us to conclude that R2P can nonetheless exert significant influence on how states interpret their legal obligations and, in the coming decade, it may also help catalyse diplomatic efforts to reform the international architecture for preventing and responding to mass atrocities.
28
Aji Poerana, Sigar, and Irawati Handayani. "ESTABLISHING THE STATUS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P) AS CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS ROLE IN PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES." Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 5, no. 1 (2021): 55–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v5i1.362.
Full textAbstract:
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
29
Choedon, Yeshi. "India on Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect: Shifting Nuances." India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs 73, no. 4 (2017): 430–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0974928417731646.
Full textAbstract:
India’s opposition to humanitarian intervention has been influenced by its colonial experience and its predisposition towards the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. However, India did not adopt a strident opposition in the post-Cold War due to the changed power configuration. The article discusses how India adopted a cautious approach and yet used every opportunity to remind the international community the baleful effect of intervention in the internal affairs. After securing concession to a considerable extent on the ambitious Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and when most of the countries showed an inclination to accept humanitarian intervention in the form of ‘R2P’ at the UN summit in 2005, India grudgingly went along accepting it. India participated in the deliberation on the implementation of R2P and took its stand on various crises in which R2P was evoked. The experience of NATO’s Libya operation under R2P was regarded as substantiation of India’s apprehension of the misuse of the concept, and India reverted its position to the sceptical view of humanitarian intervention/R2P. By mere complaining about the mixing of peace enforcement with peacekeeping, when the United Nations deployed ‘intervention brigade’ for the protection of civilians, India lost the opportunity to take the initiative to propose a new mechanism to deal with the humanitarian crisis in atrocious internal conflicts.
30
Cohen, Roberta. "The Burma Cyclone and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 2 (2009): 253–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598409x424324.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractInternational consensus has developed that R2P should not have been applied to Burma when it denied access to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. The author argues that Burma could well have been an R2P case under whose umbrella political and humanitarian action could have been mobilized. Needed are effective criteria for deciding in which situations the Security Council should act and performance standards for measuring government responses to natural disasters so that populations can be better protected.
31
Quinton-Brown, Patrick. "Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and Its State Critics." Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 3 (2013): 260–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00503003.
Full textAbstract:
Addressing dissent, also known as ‘rejectionism’, will broaden and deepen the global consensus on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. However, how should scholars understand the objections raised by state critics? To answer this question, I analyse R2P opposition as presented in official UN transcripts, voting records, and resolutions. The article reveals that six related themes of dissent exist with varying degrees of emphasis amongst opponents. Conventional depictions of R2P opposition, such as the absolute sovereignty or North vs. South explanations, are therefore inadequate representations of the diverse range of arguments employed by dissenters. Ultimately, I conclude that in order to build consensus at the expense of dissent, the principle should be further developed around four key notions: 1) non-coercive prevention and domestic capacity building, 2) enhanced prudential criteria for intervention, 3) global norm entrepreneurship from the Global South, and 4) veto restraint in R2P scenarios.
32
Odeyemi, Christo. "The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya and Syria." Journal of Global Responsibility 6, no. 2 (2015): 229–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jgr-04-2015-0006.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – Against the backdrop of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) policy – an instrument with which the UN seeks to protect vulnerable civilians from gross violations of human rights – this study examines the application of R2P in the Libyan intervention and the various efforts to replicate similar claim to intervene in Syria. While proposing that the roles of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is increasingly influential to the success of an intervention, this study asks the question: what are the general conditions for success of R2P application in Libya and Syria during the period 2011-2014? Design/methodology/approach – In its examination of the policy and scholarly works that have informed, justified and evaluated the processes and outcomes of the principles of R2P policy, this paper used relevant search terms for conditions for success of humanitarian military intervention (COSI). Specific keywords such as R2P, BRICS and humanitarian intervention are scrutinised for relevance to the research question. Documents that failed to satisfy the criteria of research quality were excluded, whereas the key problems and findings identified in each studied document were tabulated into inclusion and exclusion. Findings – Despite the role of BRICS in the Libyan and Syrian interventions, existing literature failed to explicitly make this connection, although much of the literature agreed on a number of general conditions for success. This paper problematise the relationship between success and BRICS role. One of the reasons for this is the emerging nature of the literature that is beginning to appreciate the plausibility that the BRICS influences the success of an intervention. Originality/value – This piece synthesises studies that focus on COSI with preference for works that engaged this study’s case countries. Much rich data which even until now are always in need of close examination emerged during data collection, making it useful to craft a third part for BRICS-focused literature that has informed the R2P debate.
33
McDougall, Derek. "Responsibility While Protecting." Global Responsibility to Protect 6, no. 1 (2014): 64–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00601004.
Full textAbstract:
In the evolution of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) doctrine, the most significant recent development has been the ‘responsibility while protecting’ (RWP) proposal as put forward by Brazil in September 2011, with a more detailed statement in November 2011. The RWP proposal emphasised the use of force as a last resort, and the need to avoid ‘regime change’; it also argued for closer monitoring of the use of force when R2P was invoked. Brazil’s approach to R2P was influenced by its noninterventionist attitudes deriving from its historical experience of the world. Brazil favoured caution and a focus on the responsibility of the state in relation to R2P; involvement in Haiti from 2004 highlighted the development-oriented approach to peacebuilding that Brazil preferred. The experience of R2P in Libya in 2011 was the immediate occasion for Brazil advancing the RWP proposal, with the situation in Syria also highlighting Brazilian concerns. The Brazilian proposal has been modified to some extent in subsequent discussion within the UN, but the main thrust of the proposal remains; issues relating to R2P such as sequencing and implementation have been clarified but without an overall consensus being achieved. While the Western countries generally favour flexibility in relation to R2P, the BRICS countries and the Global South are generally more cautious in their approach. The reception of the RWP proposal highlights the growing importance of the BRICS countries and the Global South in an increasingly pluralistic world.
34
Rum, Muhammad. "The State of Responsibility to Protect Inception in ASEAN Regionalism." IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 3, no. 2 (2020): 143. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/ikat.v3i2.50317.
Full textAbstract:
As a regional organization, ASEAN upholds its core principles of non-interference, consultation and consensus. Meanwhile, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) encourages the need for the international community’s intervention to a country that falls to its citizens. Hence, this creates tension between ASEAN principles and R2P. The tension is reflected when the limited capacity of a member state’s government might invite humanitarian intervention from the international community. This research aims to discuss how Southeast Asian regionalism adapts to this situation and is undergoing dynamic reformulation to reconcile ASEAN Way and humanitarian principles. In contemporary Southeast Asian Studies, the extent of R2P inception in ASEAN regional cooperation is understudied. These methods utilize a reductionist approach in I.R. studies by explaining ASEAN through the analysis of individual actors based on a constructivism school of thought. The data taken from the interviews are utilized to confirm ASEAN and member states’ positions. This study argues that the traditional constructivist tipping point measurement for an international norm needs to be revisited. The tipping points for R2P in international forums may not necessarily be well-reflected at the regional level.
35
Serrano, Mónica. "The Responsibility to Protect and its Critics: Explaining the Consensus." Global Responsibility to Protect 3, no. 4 (2011): 425–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598411x602017.
Full textAbstract:
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.
36
Staunton, Eglantine. "France and the responsibility to protect: a tale of two norms." International Relations 32, no. 3 (2018): 366–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047117818773857.
Full textAbstract:
Although France has been a key actor of human protection since the 1980s, the existing literature often adopts an Anglo-Saxon focus or concentrates on states which have been reluctant to see international norms of human protection develop. As a consequence, it overlooks France’s central role in the development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which can be seen as the leading norm of human protection today. In turn, the growing influence R2P has had on France’s conception and practice of human protection – and on its foreign policy more generally – remains unexplored. This article is the first of its kind to correct these oversights by examining France’s relationship to R2P from its emergence till date. It argues that to do so, we need to analyse the evolving relationship of two interconnected – yet distinct – norms: France’s domestic norm of human protection on the one hand, and the international norm of R2P on the other. It builds on the constructivist literature to offer a theoretical framework that allows the study of this tale of two norms and draws upon elite interviews of key actors such as Gareth Evans and Bernard Kouchner to provide a unique understanding of France’s relationship to R2P. Through this tale of two norms, the article reshapes our understanding of both R2P and France’s past and current foreign policy. In addition, it contributes to the literature on norm diffusion, in particular by deepening our understanding of how domestic and international norms interplay.
37
Henriksen, Anders. "Responsibility to Protect: Fra folkeret til politisk værktøj." Udenrigs, no. 2 (October 1, 2015): 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/udenrigs.v0i2.118359.
Full text
38
Bokeriya, Svetlana. "Key Aspects of Combined Thinking of the brics Countries on the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 12, no. 3 (2020): 336–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-20200003.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyses the key aspects of the brics countries’ joint position on the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) concept, as well as the degree of their influence on transforming R2P into a global norm. The author’s aim was to answer the following questions: What interconnection is there between the brics and R2P discourses? How can brics stimulate an alternative interpretation of the R2P idea? In terms of cross-border partnerships, is R2P-based cooperation possible within the brics framework, and are states ready to expand it in the future? brics member states have demonstrated several common approaches to R2P, including their reliance on mechanisms strengthening the role of the state, their support for the UN position on peaceful conflict settlement, and preventive diplomacy.
39
Contarino, Michael, and Selena Lucent. "Stopping the Killing: The International Criminal Court and Juridical Determination of the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 4 (2009): 560–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598509x12505800144918.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper argues that an enhanced role for the International Criminal Court in determining when a government has failed in its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) could help develop a faster, more effective, more predictable, and more impartial R2P enforcement mechanism. We outline how a juridical R2P determination process by the ICC could be actualised, and we argue that such juridical R2P determination could facilitate timely and legal multilateral actions to stop violence. We also argue that juridical R2P determination by the ICC could dissuade opportunistic and unilateral violations of national sovereignty made in the name of R2P enforcement, and reduce the concerns of R2P critics that the principle may be misused. Finally, we maintain that an enhanced R2P role for the ICC could strengthen the credibility of the United Nations Security Council, and could be politically appealing to its five permanent member states.
40
Williams, Paul. "The "Responsibility to Protect", Norm Localisation, and African International Society." Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 3 (2009): 392–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598409x450820.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractFor its advocates, the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) principle is clearly intended to be a universal concept, applicable equally to all parts of the globe. Yet recent literature examining the processes of norm diffusion in international relations has suggested that so-called universal norms do not automatically become embedded in different regions of the world and hence commitment to them varies depending on the local context. This article explores this issue with reference to how members of African international society have thought about the R2P idea. To do so it proceeds in two parts. The first summarises what I mean by African international society and the process of norm localization. In the second, I explore the current status of the R2P idea within the African society of states with reference to six illustrative episodes. These concern: 1) the building of Africa's new peace and security architecture; 2) the debate surrounding the adoption of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document; 3) UN Security Council debates about the protection of civilians in armed conflict; 4) the African Union's response to the conflict in Darfur, Sudan; 5) the UN Secretary-General's appointment of a special adviser on R2P; and 6) African international society's response to the crisis in Zimbabwe. I conclude by reflecting upon what these episodes reveal about the current status of the R2P within African international society and the extent to which different camps are emerging that articulate different local positions on, and express varying degrees of skepticism about, the protection principle.
41
Weerdesteijn, Maartje, and Barbora Holá. "“Tool in the R2P Toolbox”? Analysing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect." Criminal Law Forum 31, no. 3 (2020): 377–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10609-020-09394-x.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the last two decades, two important instruments emerged to combat mass atrocities. In 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established. Subsequently, in 2005, the international community politically committed itself to the responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities (R2P) distinguishing three pillars: (i) the responsibility of the state to protect its own population, (ii) the responsibility to help states live up to this responsibility and (iii) the responsibility of the international community to intervene when states manifestly fail to protect their population. While the ICC is frequently referred to as a “tool in the R2P toolbox,” an analysis of the ways in which the ICC works within R2P’s pillar structure was missing. Using the R2P pillar-structure, this article systematically analyses how the ICC plays a role in the implementation of R2P. More specifically, this paper disentangles the diverse modalities of ICC engagement with states – such as ratification of its Statute, positive complementarity, opening of preliminary examinations or investigations – and demonstrates the complex dynamics of the interaction between the implementation of R2P and the actions of the ICC. The workings of the Court create fluid dynamics that shift back and forth between the different pillars at different points in time. In addition, the ICC can contribute to different pillars at the same time. In some instances, however, it fits uncomfortably in the R2P pillar structure, necessitating the conceptualisation of a pillar two and a half.
42
Glanville, Luke. "The International Community's Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 3 (2010): 287–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x500408.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) holds that not only do sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their populations, but so too does the international community. The international community is said to be responsible for encouraging and assisting states to protect and also for taking collective action to enforce the protection of populations in instances where states fail to carry out their obligations. This idea that the international community itself bears not merely a right but a responsibility to protect, through military intervention if necessary, is perhaps the most novel aspect of the R2P concept, and it would seem to have extraordinary implications. Yet it remains largely under-examined. In this article, I consider how the notion that the international community bears a responsibility to protect might be fruitfully understood and conceptualised. After briefly outlining from where this idea has emerged, I consider two interrelated questions: What kind of responsibility is it – moral, legal, or political, or some combination of the three? And who in particular bears the responsibility – the international community broadly speaking, particular international institutions such as the Security Council, regional organisations, or individual states?
43
Cairns, Edmund. "R2P and Humanitarian Action." Global Responsibility to Protect 6, no. 2 (2014): 146–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00602004.
Full textAbstract:
The responsibility to protect was not the only concept that grew out of the world’s failure to tackle the mass atrocities of the 1990s in Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere. So too did a new approach to humanitarian action which placed a higher priority on protecting civilians, and on advocacy to do so, than had hitherto been common. Oxfam’s role in the campaign to persuade the 2005 World Summit to adopt the responsibility to protect was one prominent example, but, to different degrees, this broad approach has become widely shared among many international humanitarian agencies. Since 2005, however, even Oxfam has made little use of the responsibility to protect to frame its own work to help protect civilians, or to advocate to prevent mass atrocities in specific crises. This is partly because of the fear that R2P can be misapplied to justify military intervention where the benefits do not clearly outweigh the risks. But it is also because of the continuing suspicion around R2P among many governments. This seems to reflect the wider limits of what largely Western-based humanitarian agencies and governments can do to develop new international norms and put them into effect. When R2P was first developed, humanitarian agencies played a part in broadly similar alliances to ban landmines, establish the icc and so on. Some of these have already had a substantial effect, while it may be a generation before the value of R2P and others can be fairly evaluated. Looking ahead, humanitarian agencies will have to put an increasing emphasis on influencing emerging powers and other Southern governments, while alliances between governments and ngos, to be effective, will have to be genuinely global.
44
Haugevik, Kristin. "Regionalising the Responsibility to Protect: Possibilities, Capabilities and Actualities." Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 3 (2009): 346–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598409x450802.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article discusses what role regional organisations can and should play in ensuring implementation of the international Responsibility to Protect (R2P). What formal responsibility and which enabling capabilities do regional organisations have for assuming a role in protecting populations from mass atrocities? The article begins by discussing the formal role projected for regional organisations in the implementation of R2P, individually and vis-à-vis the UN, in the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document. The description of this role is then compared to the one depicted in the advisory 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The second part of the article offers an overview of relevant capabilities held by key regional organisations in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia, capabilities that could enable them to take part in protection tasks prior to, during, or in the aftermath of mass atrocities. In the third part of the report, the capability aspect is seen in relation to the constitutive and constraining impact that individual member states' interests may have on the ability of regional organisations to act within the context of R2P.
45
Sarkin, Jeremy, and Mark Paterson. "Special Issue for GR2P: Africa's Responsibility to Protect Introduction." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 339–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519525.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe introduction sketches the recent development of the 'responsibility to protect' norm and emphasises its African roots, both in terms of its conceptualisation and implementation and with particular respect to two tragedies—the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the crisis in Darfur since 2003—that have lent urgency to the norm's formulation and widespread international adoption. The number and extent of R2P cases in Africa are outlined and the roles of the African Union and Africa's regional organisations in implementing the norm are briefly considered. The introduction acknowledges the importance of examining R2P through African perspectives. Referencing the justifications and primary principles for action upon which the norm is founded, the authors also assess the relative strengths of competing notions of sovereignty in Africa. The essay further considers how R2P has come to be seen as a mechanism that can bolster the capacity of weak states to fulfil their sovereign responsibilities to their own citizens, and how new international obligations imposed upon states, and particularly those adopted in Africa, have made significant inroads into the old concept of sovereignty as territorial integrity and freedom from external interventions.
46
Stamnes, Eli. "The Responsibility to Protect: Integrating Gender Perspectives into Policies and Practices." Global Responsibility to Protect 4, no. 2 (2012): 172–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598412x639692.
Full textAbstract:
Despite the fact that the development of the R2P principle has occurred in parallel to significant developments in the field of gender on the international scene, gender remains a neglected topic in the central documents and debates related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). There is therefore a need to consider how gender may be integrated into R2P policies and practices. This article suggests that this discussion may be structured around two gender perspectives, which are guided by the questions of ‘where are the women?’ and ‘how does gender work?’ respectively. The first gender perspective involves identifying women’s experiences in connection with mass atrocities and taking into account their role as agents in the commissioning, as well as the prevention of, and protection against, such atrocities. The second gender perspective involves investigating what work gender is doing in the context of mass atrocities. Here, the focus is specifically on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and how this is based on, and serves to maintain or reinforce, certain notions of femininity and masculinity. Based on these two gender perspectives, the article presents a series of recommendations for the development of R2P policies and practices.
47
Marlier, Grant, and Neta C. Crawford. "Incomplete and Imperfect Institutionalisation of Empathy and Altruism in the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine." Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 397–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-00504003.
Full textAbstract:
This paper argues the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine institutionalised empathy and altruism, however incompletely and imperfectly, and began a transformation of the UN Security Council’s ‘organisational responsibility’ by shifting the organisation’s moral frame of reference from state to individual security. Second, the twin dangers associated with the misuse of the R2P doctrine—namely paternalistic interventions or the cynical use of R2P language and reasoning to justify interventions taken primarily to promote the interests of the interveners – can be ameliorated by even greater institutionalisation of empathy, a process that is already underway.
48
GARWOOD-GOWERS, Andrew. "China and the “Responsibility to Protect”: The Implications of the Libyan Intervention." Asian Journal of International Law 2, no. 2 (2012): 375–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s204425131200015x.
Full textAbstract:
The emerging principle of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) challenges China's traditional emphasis on non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states and non-use of force. This article considers the impact of the 2011 Libyan intervention on Beijing's evolving relationship with R2P, and assesses its implications for the future development of the doctrine itself. It argues that China's decision to allow the passage of Security Council resolution 1973, which authorized force in Libya, was shaped by an unusual set of political and factual circumstances, and does not represent a significant softening of Chinese attitudes towards R2P. More broadly, controversy over the scope of NATO's military action in Libya has raised questions about R2P's legitimacy, which have contributed to a lack of timely international action in Syria. In the short term, this post-Libya backlash against R2P is likely to constrain the Security Council's ability to respond decisively in civilian protection situations.
49
Zambara, Webster. "Africa's National Human Rights Institutions and the Responsibility to Protect." Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 4 (2010): 458–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598410x519589.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe essay argues that one of the greatest shifts in the international humanitarian order heralded by the end of the Cold War has been the concept of holding state sovereignty accountable to an international human rights standard. It argues that while the concept of R2P has generally focused on humanitarian intervention at a macro level, the period since the 1990s has also witnessed an increase of micro-level institutions, in the form of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) that can advance R2P, including 31 such institutions in Africa. NHRIs can potentially bolster R2P and foster peace in countries in which they operate. The general popularity of R2P as an international standard is contrasted with the great suspicion with which it is regarded by a number of governments—particularly in Africa, where sovereignty is guarded with passion as a result of the anticolonial struggles that gave birth to national independence on the continent. The author further argues that NHRIs—when properly institutionalised and functioning optimally—can play an important role in protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, and have the potential to help countries attain international human rights norms and standards without unduly threatening their sovereign independence. The essay examines the role of NHRIs in the four cases of Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa, and assesses the establishment and operation of African NHRIs using measures formulated by the internationally agreed Paris Principles of 1993.
50
Petersson, Jens. "Making Europe's Responsibility to Protect More Credible." Global Responsibility to Protect 3, no. 3 (2011): 353–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187598411x586089.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractEuropean nations should strengthen the United Nations military capability to manage conflicts on the African continent. The EU should also learn from the AU and incorporate a paragraph similar to §4h in the AU charter into the EU's own security political framework. Combined, these actions should make Europe's contribution to the military aspects of R2P more credible.