Responsibility to Protect and the International Community in the Intervention - Research Paper Example

? Responsibility to Protect History and Political Science Do s have the Responsibility to protect The responsibilityto protect happens to be an initiative by the United Nations established in 2005. It comprises of an emerging custom, or setting of principles, on the basis of thought that power is not a concession, rather it is a responsibility. Responsibility to protect concentrates on the prevention, as well as faltering four crimes i.e. genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, along with crimes against humanity that take place beneath the generic umbrella expression of Mass Atrocity Crimes (Welsh 2004, p.6). Responsibility to protect states that (Welsh 2004, p.12): a) A state is responsible for the protection of its population against mass atrocities; b) It is the responsibility of the international community to help the state in case it is incapable of protecting its population by its own; c) In case the state fails in protecting its citizens against mass atrocities, along with peaceful actions have not succeeded, then it is the international community's duty to arbitrate through compelled measures like economic sanctions; nonetheless, military intervention happens to the last resort. According to the international community, responsibility to protect is a custom, rather than a law. Responsibility to protect presents a framework the utilization of the tools that are already in existance, i.e. mediation, powers of chapter Vii, initial warning mechanisms, along with economic sanctioning, in the deterrence of mass atrocities. Therefore, different institutions such as states, the civil society organizations, international institutions and regional organizations play a significant role in the process of responsibility to protect. At the World Summit held in 2005, Member States incorporated responsibility to protect into the Outcome Document consenting particularly to Paragraphs 138, along with 139, which presented final language to the extent of responsibility to protect. Although this is applicable only to the four crimes of mass atrocities, it is also responsible for the identification of whom the responsibility to protect practice is relevant to, i.e. states first, followed by the regional, as well as international communities (Welsh 2004, p.19). According to paragraph 138, every State is responsible for the protection of its populations against crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. This responsibility consists of the prevention of crimes like incitement, by all means possible and necessary. Each state must accept that responsibility, while, at the same time, acting in accord with it. On the other hand, it is the international community's duty of appropriately encouraging, as well as assisting states in exercising this responsibility while in support of the United Nations within the organization of an early warning capability. On the other hand, paragraph 139 asserts that the international community, by means of the United Nations, is responsible of using suitable diplomatic, humanitarian, as well as other peaceful means, in accord with the Charters Chapters Vi and VIII, in helping in the protection of populations from crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of ethnic cleansing, as well as war crimes. Therefore, the international community makes preparation for taking communal action, in a manner that is timely, as well as decisive manner, via the Security Council, in accord with Chapter Vii of the Charter, on the basis of a case by case, and in collaboration with pertinent regional organizations as suitable, should peaceful means turn out to be inadequate while failure of national authorities in protecting their populations from crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of ethnic cleansing, as well as war crimes. It is imperative for the General Assembly to continuously put into consideration the responsibility of protecting populations against crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes, along with its consequences, in view of the standards of the Charter, along with international law. Apart form that, this paragraph stresses the need for the international community to commit itself, as necessary and suitable, to assisting States in capacity building for the protection of their populations from crimes against humanity, genocide crimes, crimes of ethnic cleansing, as well as war crimes while helping those states under stress before the breaking out of crises and conflicts (Welsh 2004, p.27). The reaffirmation of these paragraphs took place in April 2006 by the UNSC thereby formalizing their backing for the responsibility to protect. This was followed by the major advancement within responsibility to protect in January 2009, with Ban Ki-Moon, who is the UN Secretary-General releasing a report. This report resulted in a discussion in the General Assembly held in July 2009 the theme being responsibility to protect. The majority of the members who conversed were in support of the rule of responsibility to protect, though, some significant concerns came up; amongst those issues were how to execute responsibility to protect in crisis circumstances all over the world. Through this debate, there was the highlighting of the requirement for regional organizations such as the African Union of playing a strong responsibility in the implementation of responsibility to protect; the requirement for stronger early warning techniques in the United Nations; together with the requirement of clarifying the responsibilities played by the UN bodies in the responsibility to protect’s implementation. One consequence of the discussion was the initial responsibility to protect resolution implemented by the General Assembly, revealing that the international community still remembered the significance of responsibility in protecting, while, at the same time, it committed on further tackling the issues of concern. In accordance to ICISS Report in 2001, that failed in its implementation by national governments, any military intervention instigated beneath the premise of responsibility for the protection, tend to be justified as a particular measure of intervention (Welsh 2004, p.39). One of the key concerns encircling responsibility to protect is that it breaches national sovereignty; a concern refuted by the Ban Ki-moon inside his report. In accordance to the initial pillar of responsibility to protect, it is the state's duty of providing protection of its populations from crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of ethnic cleansing, as well as war crimes; while, at the same time, the second pillar asserts that it is the international community's duty to assist states in the completion of their responsibility. Supporters of responsibility to protect maintain that only occurences whereby the international community tends to arbitrate on a State devoid of its approval is whenever the state is happens to be permitting mass atrocities to take place, or is executing them hence the State no longer supports its duties as a sovereign. Therefore, in this case, responsibility to protect is understood as strengthening sovereignty. Nonetheless, it is unclear who decides on behalf of the international community; therefore, there is a perception that responsibility to protect happens to be an instrument of western countries in the justification of the infringements of power of other countries particularly in the developing world, utilizing international institutions controlled by The West. In most cases, the extent of responsibility to protect is put into questioning; there are concerns as to whether responsibility to protect should be applicable to not less than the four crimes. For instance, should responsibility to protect be applied in protecting civilians in danger as a result of natural disasters? Nonetheless, there is consensus that the extent of responsibility to protect continues to be narrow, as well as well-defined. According to member states, the original extent of responsibility to protect should remain the same since with the widening the applicability of responsibility to protect, their is a possibility of diminishing its effectiveness (Welsh 2004, p.47). On the other hand, the uncertainty of military intervention found in the third pillar of responsibility to protect continues to exhibit controversy. A number of states argue that responsibility to protect should not permit the international community in the intervention by using military on States considering that by so doing it infringes sovereignty. There are others who believe that this significant feature of responsibility to protect, thereby making it essential as a last resort in stopping mass atrocities. Apart from that, there are argument surrounding the query as to whether more certain criteria must be developed in ascertaining whenever the Security Council must approve military intervention. Furthermore, there is another apprehension surrounding responsibility to protect about the Security Council within the UN, when making a decision whereby, crises responsibility to protect is applicable, have been discriminating, as well as biased. A rejection from a sole member of the five members who happens to be permanent, brings bias to the entire process; for instance, the UNSC failed in voting for the interventions in Chechnya since Russia resisted such action. There is an acknowledgement of this as an issue of significant concern, while, at the same time, it has hampered the implementation of responsibility to protect. A number of this concerned advocate that the permanent members of UNSC consent not to utilize their veto in instances whereby proven mass atrocities are ongoing (Welsh 2004, p.73). References: Welsh, J. M., 2004. Humanitarian Intervention plus International Relations. London: Oxford University Press. Read More