Key Actors on Responsibility to Protect Implementation - Case Study Example

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT By Authors Name Name of Class Name of Professor Name of School City/State 21st May 2016 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Key Actors on R2P Implementation 4 Current State of Affairs about International law 5 Criticism 6 Effectiveness of R2P 7 Recommendations 8 References 10 Introduction The Responsibility to Protect is an international convention that stipulates that a state have the primary role of protecting the population from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide; these are collectively termed mass atrocities. It also states that if a state fails to protect the people, the responsibility falls on the international community. It is also called R2P or RtoP. The international community unanimously supported the concept of R2P during the United Nations Sixtieth Anniversary World Summit in September 2005 (Evans, 2009). It is mandated to prevent mass atrocities in the event the affected country is unwilling or unable to prevent them. It embraces three distinct responsibilities: first, to avoid crises from arising. Second, to react by putting appropriate measures to end a crisis by using sanctions, international prosecutions or military intervention during extreme cases. Third, to rebuild a state by providing full assistance with recovery, reconciliation, and reconstruction after a military intervention (Bellamy, 2013). R2P stipulates that sovereignty requires responsibility, and all countries must heed to this concept. R2P was founded upon the international legal obligations under the human protection declaration and international humanitarian law. The Security Council was given the responsibility to control the R2P (Evans, 2009). In April 2006, the Security Council adopted the Summit’s decision on Resolution 1674. However, some countries like China did not initially support this adoption, but they later came to a consensus to adopt and implement it. R2P has three pillars: Pillar I stipulates protection responsibilities of the state. Pillar II requires international assistance and capacity building if a state lacks the capacity to offer protection to its population. Pillar III requires timely and decisive responses from the international community (Bellamy, 2013). Key Actors on R2P Implementation The responsibility to protect is conferred upon the Member States. Therefore, they play a fundamental role in the implementation of R2P. Civil societies have a responsibility to protect civilians through monitoring human rights and peace building among others. There is a need for them to endorse and raise awareness and acceptance of R2P so that it can help them in their efforts. Member states have avenues, which enable them to discuss issues on R2P with the Security Council. They include Focal Points initiative, which aims at preventing atrocities in national policy, the group of friends that is a strategic supporter of R2P and the Latin American Network for Genocide Prevention among others (Bellamy, 2013). National parliaments also have a crucial role as they act as a link between the public and the governments. They are required to hold governments to account regarding R2P implementation. The civil society has played important roles such as: raising awareness about R2P through outreach and education; they have also contributed to strengthening the capacity for prevention and have helped in census building. For example, Global Centre for RtoP, which has a high profile of advisory board aims at building an understanding of R2P, giving advice on the action to take during a crisis and recommend proper strategies and working together with their partners to ‘operationalise’ the process (Bellamy, 2013). United States- Atrocity Prevention Board has roles such as: monitoring the preparations of the first National Intelligence Estimate on mass atrocities risks in the globe which enable it to come up with prevention methods. Governments supported Declaration’s pledge to use collective action in case of mass atrocities (Evans, 2009). The civil societies play a critical role and should be engaged in the implementation of R2P. Current State of Affairs about International law The present status of R2P is tentative, and no real universal compromise on the situation has been reached mainly due to Security Council deadlock on Syrian Crisis. China and Russia did not support R2P resolution aimed at calming the Syrian Crisis due to fear that it may be used to overthrow the Assad Regime illegitimately (UN Document). Syria is a big market for Russian firearms so Russia might be unwilling to support R2P to protect its self-interests. Self-interest among states has hindered R2P from achieving its goals. Some countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan argue that the third pillar is inconsistent with the international law this impedes full implementation of R2P concepts in such countries (Bellamy, 2013). The commitments of African regional and sub-regional arrangements determine if R2P will succeed. Most of the peace missions carried out by the Security Council using R2P are in Africa therefore, the support of African organisations is needed. R2P has made significant achievements since its establishment. They include: the member states have accepted the ‘three pillars” implementation strategies provided by the Secretary General’s, and they have also endorsed its institutionalisation. They have also established a common UN office for Genocide Prevention and R2P mandated to give early warning, assessment and for convening senior officials so that they can give advice during a crisis. Also, the debate has been moved to the question of implementation instead of critiquing the principle. Moreover, there is a broad and deepened understanding about R2P as contracted in paragraphs 138-140 of the World Summit Outcome Document and a consent on the pact (Bellamy, 2013). This trend shows that the norm will improve if the policy makers put the right measures in place. Criticism Critics say that R2P undermines the sovereignty of a nation, which is not the case; R2P only advocates for a sovereignty that entails responsibility, and that international community should accept the responsibility if the country is either incapable or disinclined to protect its population (Evans, 2009). There are disagreements on the functions, meaning and the proper use of R2P, which is worsened by inconsistent application of the principle. For instance, Russia on the issue of Georgia and France on the matter of Myanmar used R2P to justify their use of coercive force although their opponents had not failed to protect the populations from mass atrocities (Bellamy, 2010). It is wrong for countries to use this principle to justify their action; the only body mandated to give an order for military intervention is the Security Council. Another issue that critics raise is that diplomats and governments have not applied R2P in countries such as Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan where many atrocities are committed against the population (Quinton-Brown, 2013). It is a great setback for R2P; there is a need for the international community to apply these concepts in their peace mission in these countries. R2P faces a problem of relevance this is because it does not have a specific way of solving a crisis. It is implemented on a case-to-case basis; this leads to controversies making it difficult for it to achieve its goals. It also has a challenge of expanding the engagements of Member States, regional and sub-regional provisions in the implementation of R2P (Bellamy, 2010). Failure of the UN to provide information on a crisis leads to a little engagement with the member states; this hinders the UN from getting strategic advice from the members. Effectiveness of R2P The norms effectiveness has different approaches: First, the extreme holds that R2P causes more genocidal violence in that it encourages the rebels to provoke more genocide responses from the government. Secondly, a lesser radical variant holds that R2P supports external actors to offer unnecessary attention to military rejoinders instead of using promising political solutions. Thirdly, that indeterminacy of second and third pillars limits how it can cause a tangible effect on behaviour (Bellamy, 2013). This indicates that there is a challange in the implementation on the norm. A more positive approach is in the cases where R2P succeeded in preventing atrocities. For instance, Kenya experienced tribal violence after the 2007 elections, which were disputed; about 1500 and 300,000 people were killed and displaced, respectively. A diplomatic exertion led by African Union arbitrator, Kofi Annan, with the support of the Secretary-General and the Security Council successfully applied the ‘R2P Prism’ on Mwai Kibaki, the then president and Raila Odinga, who opposition leader, to forge a power-sharing agreement that ended the violence (Cohen, 2008). This shows that if R2P is used correctly, it can help to stop and prevent atrocities. R2P was also successful in Ivory Coast when the Security Council unanimously approved the 1975 resolution, which condemned human rights abuses carried out by supporters of Laurent Gbagbo and Ouattara, the ex-president and the sitting president, respectivley. The resolution stated that a state’s primary responsibility is to protect civilians, and it called for the immediate step down of ex-president Gbagbo. It asserted that UN Operations in Ivory Coast (UNOCI) would employ all the essential means to ensure that the civilians were protected. UNOCI began a military operation on 4th April 2011. President Ouattara's forces arrested former President Gbagbo and later he was transferred to International Criminals Court making a win for R2P (UNOCI Resources). R2P succeeded in protecting civilians. R2P was used in Libya to stop the attacks on civilians that were occurring during Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. It adopted Resolution 1970 and made explicit references on R2P. Military intervention was used, and the case referred to the International Criminals Court (Bellamy, 2013). The council gave the member states authority to employ whatever measures necessary to protect the civilians. NATO powers acted on the resolution. Although the NATO forces helped to end the Gaddafi regime, they caused civilian casualties meaning that they failed to perform their duty of protecting. Military intervention can worsen the situation as seen in this mission. This shows that no rules are governing how an organisation or a member state should apply military intervention. R2P has not been used to stop massive atrocities in some affected countries, for instance; the Security Council has not used the R2P mechanisms to solve the issues affecting Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq (Bellamy, 2013). This shows that the international community has not performed its duty of protecting civilians in these countries. Some countries give R2P full support while others do not, for example, Russia, and China. Some member states honor the decision they endorsed during the Summit while others do not (Evans, 2009). The Security Council need to create more awareness and acceptance of the norm. Recommendations The International community should only use force as a last resort, and if it is used, there should be clear rules on the weapons that should be used and how to ensure civilian safety. The regional, national and international institutions should aid in sustaining the capacities and behaviours envisioned by UN Secretary General (Bellamy, 2013). This adoption will make it easier to avert and to counteract mass atrocities. Policy makers should come up with a law on how countries that use R2P to pursue self-interests should be punished. R2P should be employed together with other international commitments such as International Criminal Court and some regional arrangements, as it will enhance the ability of the international community to counteract and thwart mass atrocities in the world. Timely and accurate information about a crisis should be given to the member states, as this will provide a basis for developing response options. Policy makers should generate, analyze and disseminate information on civilian casualties, as it would help countries to know how to stop the atrocities (Bellamy, 2013). The Security Council should seek early consensus among their members so that they can solve the crisis faster. R2P enforcers should raise awareness about the norm with the help of civil societies, national parliaments and regional and subregional arrangements. Policymakers should also mainstream R2P into the work of UN that is, R2P should be made a principle on areas of humanitarian affairs, peacekeeping, among others (Bellamy, 2013). They should also aim at making prevention a reality. They should also learn lessons from previous enforcements. References "Presidential Elections. UNOCI Resources – United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire". un.org Bellamy, A.J., 2010. The responsibility to protect—five years on. Ethics & International Affairs, 24(2). Bellamy, A.J., 2013. The Responsibility to Protect: Towards a “Living Reality”. Cohen, R., 2008. How Kofi Annan Rescued Kenya. The New York Review of Books, 55(13). Evans, G., 2009. The responsibility to protect. Palgrave Macmillan US. Evans, G., 2009. The responsibility to protect: ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Brookings Institution Press. Quinton-Brown, P., 2013. “Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and its State Critics,” Global Responsibility to Protect, 5. UN Security Council, “The Situation in the Middle East”, UN Document S/PV.6627, 4 October 2011, pp. 4 (Russia’s statement), 5 (China’s statement), , viewed 17 November 2014. Read More