The Responsibility to Protect - Coursework Example

The responsibility to Protect Introduction The doctrine of Responsibility to protect (R2P) is based on the need for states to be proactive in prevention of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. R2P is founded on two basic principles. The first is that State sovereignty should entail responsibility, which implies that the primary responsibility of a sovereign state is to protect its people. Secondly, in the event that a population of a country is subjected to serious harm, whether as a consequence of internal conflict, state failure, or insurgency, and the affected state is unable or unwilling to avert or halt it, the responsibility to protect may be assumed by the international community. The responsibility to protect is a composite of three precise responsibilities. First is the responsibility to prevent, which involves a proactive evaluation of the root causes of conflict and other crises that compromise the security of populations. Second is the responsibility to react, which involves employing effective measures in response to compelling human security needs. Such responses may involve coercive measures such as sanctions, international prosecution and military intervention. Third is the responsibility to rebuild, which involves providing recovery, reconstruction and conciliation assistance especially after military intervention. The primary responsibility of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. To this end, the UN seeks to protect territorial integrity, national sovereignty and political independence of member states. The challenge in meeting this objective is that modern armed conflicts are mostly internal and not inter-state. This has resulted in the dilemma that currently faces the Security Council: how to balance its foundational principle of protecting the sovereignty of member states, and its primary mandate of maintaining global peace and security. The objective of this discussion is to explore the context of this dilemma, institutional and normative frameworks and responses to emerging challenges by the international community. The discussion highlights key areas that require reassessment and recommendations that the international community needs to reconsider in regard to intervention for purposes of protection. The Policy Dilemma The main challenge facing intervention for humanitarian purposes concerns policy. Issues that have evoked much controversy regard the right of the international community to intervene for human protection purposes, when and how this intervention is appropriate, and who has the authority to sanction such an exercise. Military intervention for the purpose of human protection has drawn immense debate both when it has taken place as in the case of Kosovo, Somalia and Bosnia, and when it has not happened as in the case of Rwanda. The intervention dilemma came to the fore after the 1990 intervention in Kosovo by of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Members of the Security Council were in disagreement over several issues. Foremost was whether military intervention without the authority of the Security Council was legally justified. Questions have been raised regarding whether indeed the human rights abuses committed by the Belgrade authorities were serious enough to warrant external intervention. Some members of the Security Council concluded that the exercise could not be justified, since it was undertaken without first exploring peaceful resolution to the conflict. The intervention was conceived to have generated more unprecedented carnage, an outcome that it was meant to prevent. Contemporarily debate on human protection has also been greatly influenced by United Nations failure to protect thousands of civilians in Bosnia who were massacred in 1995 while they sought shelter in UN “safe areas”. This has widely been considered a betrayal of UN’s promise to protect human life. Similar crimes against humanity were again witnessed in Somalia in 1992 at the watch of the UN, which instead opted to withdraw peace operations all together. The failure of the intervention initiatives in Somalia were largely attributed to poor planning and execution, and excessive reliance on military force. The full horror of UN’s and other organizations inability to take action was witnessed in Rwanda where thousands of civilians were massacred in an inter-tribal conflict. The genocide in Rwanda happened despite the UN having full knowledge of the plans by government officials to start inter-tribal conflict. UN forces were present at the onset of the genocide, and they had sufficient resources to either mitigate or prevent the slaughter that ensued. The failure of the Security Council to prevent the genocide has been regarded as the highest level of inadequacy in civic courage and international will. The cases of Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia and Bosnia formed the basis for the contemporary debate on intervention policy. The result has been the emergence of serious divergence in perspective within the international community. The most pertinent issues in this controversy regard the inadequate or excessive involvement of the international community in resolving conflicts that have resulted in massive loss of life, displacement of communities and infringement on basic human rights. The UN Generally Assembly was obliged to respond to increased controversy on the subject of intervention for humanitarian purposes. The beginning of this response was the address given by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in September 1999 to the UN General assembly. Key actors and their Roles in International Processes In his address to the General assembly in 1999, Annan implored the international community to reflect upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century”. By recounting on the failures of the Security Council especially in Rwanda and Kosovo, Annan challenged member states to focus on their common purpose of upholding principles enshrined in the charter, which require them to act decisively in defense of common humanity. In highlighting the dilemma and challenge that the Security Council faced, Annan stated that the question of sovereignty should not be an impediment to humanitarian intervention. The Government of Canada responded by establishing the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). ICISS was mandated to explore possibilities of reconciling the concept of state sovereignty, and the challenge of appropriate intervention for purposes of human rights protection. The primary objective of the commission was to forge a global political consensus that would enable the United Nations to play a more effective role in human rights protection. To this end, the commission sought to consolidate perspectives of both developed and developing nations in order to present a representative perspective that reflected the different opinions, viewpoints and experiences regarding the debate on intervention The 21st century has witnessed the emergence of a new set of challenges distinctively different from those that preoccupied the international community in 1945 when the United Nations was established. The advent of new challenges and new expectations for action has resulted in the emergence of new actors that include intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. A critical challenge to the functioning and effectiveness of these organizations is their limited capacity and mandate to address modern international needs and expectations. Foremost among emerging challenges is the urgent need to transform international institutions and norms to effectively address the challenge of international intervention for purpose of human protection. The intervention debate is taking place in significantly expanded range of actors that include both state and non-state. Legal and normative frameworks that have been developed to address the challenge of intervention are faced with a new set of issues, concerns and expectations. The institutional framework within which this debate takes place holds out the prospect of a joint international approach to resolving issues that pertain to security, peace, and human rights. An increase in the number of member’s states from 51 in 1946 to the present 189 has evoked new perspectives, experiences, interests and expectations. A majority of new actors include institutional actors and mechanisms especially those that concern human rights and security. The most notable of these actors include the UN High Commissioner for Human rights, former Yugoslavia’s International Criminal Tribunal, the Tribunal for Rwanda, the Tribunal for Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Court. Additionally, established institutions such as the UN high Commissioner for Refugees, the International Federation of Red Cross, the ICRC, and the Red Crescent societies continue to play an active role in the ongoing debate. The debate on intervention for human protection purposes has received several non-state actors. A significant number of them are NGO’s that deal with global matters, and academic and media institutions with global reach. There has also been an increase in the number of armed non-state actors such as national and international terrorist groups and traditional rebel movements. International legal and normative frameworks Contemporary debate on intervention for human protection purposes takes place in a historical, legal and political context that reflects evolving international standards in regard to the conduct of member states and individuals. New standards in protection of human rights require stronger norms and mechanisms. Protection of human rights has been adopted as a mainstream agenda in application of international law, as the concept of respect for human rights gains significance as a primary objective and responsibility of the international community. This progression has been marked by the achievement of several milestones that include; the Universal Declaration of human rights; the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; the four Geneva conventions; the 1966 Covenants that concern political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights; and the 1998 statute that led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Transformation in law and legal norms has not been in isolation, as a broad range of non-governmental organizations and international institutions have established to promote and monitor the implementation of international humanitarian law and human rights. The implication is that emerging expectations for conduct are accompanied by renewed expectations for corrective measures. A significant new development in international law and relations is the concept of human security. The significance of this concept is that it provides a conceptual framework and platform for international action. The result has been an increase in the recognition of the concepts of human rights, human security and human dignity as basic objectives of contemporary international relations. Recent developments in international law and international relations point at the realization of genuine prospects for the Security Council to fulfill the objectives envisaged in the Union Charter. There has been an increase in capacity and opportunities for collective action, a trend that has not been witnessed since the end of the cold war. New prospects for common action by the Security Council were particularly exemplified in the 1990s, when the council authorized over 40 peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations worldwide. The concept of state sovereignty is a significant constituent of the UN Charter. The concept is particularly important for many states, as it defines a states unique identity and freedom. It justifies the rights of individual states to shape their own destiny. There has, however, been a dramatic shift in the conditions under which sovereignty is upheld and intervention is practiced. New developments in international law have set new limits on what states can be permitted to do especially in regard to human security and human rights. Challenges, Critiques and Responses The emergence of new actors also implies an increase in new sets of issues, interests and expectations. The most significant security concern is the drastic increase in proliferation of armed conflict in some countries. Conflicts within states are in most cases attributed to demands for greater political and civil rights. The end of the cold war marked the beginning of a new era where emphasis was laid on democratization, good governance and human rights. Many countries have however degenerated into civil conflict and internal wars that result in grave political and humanitarian repercussions. Armed conflicts in other countries have been motivated by the need to capture resources. Armed groups have capitalized on weak governance structures in some countries to exploit valuable assets and natural resources such as diamonds and timber. A great challenge that faces intervention for human protection purpose is the rebuilding of a stable order in affected communities. Having consensus in regard to intervention measures thus does not stop with identifying the right authority to sanction it or identifying legitimate reasons to undertake the exercise. The exercise must be done it in a way that decent objectives are not compromised by flawed execution mechanisms. It has been widely accepted among UN member states that that peacekeeping strategies and mechanisms that were designed to manage war between states are no longer effective in protecting civilians that may be caught up in conflicts between states and insurgents. The challenge is crafting new strategies and tactics of military intervention that fill the gap between outdated peacekeeping concepts and full-scale military interventions that may result in deleterious effects on civilians. A further challenge that has been noted in developing and implementing effective intervention measures is consistency in the responses that are crafted. Contemporary media activities are influenced by a myriad of interests, resulting in uneven coverage of humanitarian crises. Some crises have received significant media attention and coverage, while others have been treated with indifference and neglect. An exaggeration of some crises by the media and ill-considered calls for intervention has resulted in skewed responses from the international community resulting in inconsistencies and indiscipline in execution of intervention measures. The Way Forward The basic consensus is that the international community should discharge its responsibility by acting swiftly in the event that the states in question are either unable to or unwilling to fulfill their basic responsibility of protecting human rights and security. The concept of intervention for protection purposes has been an issue of immense controversy and debate. For military intervention to be internationally accepted, the international community must develop standards that are credible, consistent and enforceable. The interventions and non-interventions that characterized the cases of Rwanda, Kosovo Somalia and Srebrenica have clearly indicated the need for reassessment of international relations, and the tools and mechanisms employed in intervention. In a report published by ICISS, the evolving needs of the 21st century require intervention approaches to be based on four objectives. Foremost is the need to establish clear and comprehensible procedures, rules and criteria for verifying whether, when and how intervention measures should be undertaken. Secondly, the option of military intervention should only be considered if it is legitimate, and in the event that other peaceful options have failed. Thirdly, in the event that the only effective measure of intervention is military action, it should only be done in a way that it meets the precise objectives proposed. It should be effective, and should be undertaken in manner that minimizes institutional damage and human costs. Finally, the primary objective in protecting human rights and human security should be to eliminate the causes of conflict and enhance prospects for sustainable peace. As pointed out by Secretary General Kofi Annan, failure of the council and the five permanent members to make the Council effective and relevant in regard to issues that concern human security and human rights will eventually demean the authority, stature and significance of the council. The Council has made significant strides in fulfilling this responsibility, but quite often it has not successfully lived up to the expectations of the international community. This has sometimes been attributed to the uncertainty on how intervention measures would impact on domestic politics, and in other cases it has been caused by lack of interest by the five permanent members to take action. Moving on in the 21st century, more effort needs to be made in encouraging the Council to exercise, rather than abdicate its responsibility to protect. As required by article 24 of the Charter, matters that pertain to international peace and security should be promptly and effectively engaged by the Council. The UN has the responsibility to maintain the moral legitimacy, administrative impartiality and political credibility in mediating, moderating and reconciling the competing pulls that plague the international community security efforts. For the UN to be successful in implementing intervention measures, the international community must, however, provide sufficient resources for the organization to meet the demands made on it. As it has been the case in the past, the Security Council may fail to act in time or reject a proposal to intervene in genuine cases where humanitarian issues are clearly at stake. This does not by any measure discount an exploration of alternative means to discharge the responsibility. A possible alternative would be to seek the involvement of the General Assembly as stipulated in the “uniting for Peace” procedures. The procedures were developed in 1950 to address situations where the Security Council fails to exercise its responsibility in maintaining international security. In consideration of the fact that urgent intervention may be required, it is recommended that an Emergency Special Session be convened at the earliest time possible. The plenary session would be sufficient to make a resolution, and consultation with other committees may not be mandatory. The position of the General Assembly in favor of intervention action would provide the required legitimacy, especially if the decisions are supported by a majority of member states. It has been established in this discussion that the foremost challenge that faces intervention for protection purpose is forging reconciliation between supporting the sovereignty of states and improving the capacity of the UN and the international community at large to effectively and decisively react to humanitarian crises. Recommendations The General assembly should adopt a declaratory resolution that embodies basic principles concerning the responsibility to protect. The resolution should contain four basic elements: affirmation of sovereignty as a responsibility of the state to both the local and international community; assertion of the international community’s responsibility in addressing humanitarian crises as being to prevent, to react and to rebuild; definition of the threshold for justifiable military intervention; and articulation of precautionary considerations to be observed when military measures are employed. The Security Council should seek to reach a consensus on the guidelines that should be embraced in governing responses to requests for military intervention. The Security Council’s Permanent Five members should play a supportive role in intervention measures by not applying their veto power in matters that do not directly concern their state interests, as that may result in obstruction of resolutions to authorize military intervention in cases that are genuine humanitarian crises and which a majority of the members agree require such intervention. Read More

The intervention dilemma came to the fore after the 1990 intervention in Kosovo by of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Members of the Security Council were in disagreement over several issues. Foremost was whether military intervention without the authority of the Security Council was legally justified. Questions have been raised regarding whether indeed the human rights abuses committed by the Belgrade authorities were serious enough to warrant external intervention. Some members of the Security Council concluded that the exercise could not be justified, since it was undertaken without first exploring peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The intervention was conceived to have generated more unprecedented carnage, an outcome that it was meant to prevent. Contemporarily debate on human protection has also been greatly influenced by United Nations failure to protect thousands of civilians in Bosnia who were massacred in 1995 while they sought shelter in UN “safe areas”. This has widely been considered a betrayal of UN’s promise to protect human life. Similar crimes against humanity were again witnessed in Somalia in 1992 at the watch of the UN, which instead opted to withdraw peace operations all together.

The failure of the intervention initiatives in Somalia were largely attributed to poor planning and execution, and excessive reliance on military force. The full horror of UN’s and other organizations inability to take action was witnessed in Rwanda where thousands of civilians were massacred in an inter-tribal conflict. The genocide in Rwanda happened despite the UN having full knowledge of the plans by government officials to start inter-tribal conflict. UN forces were present at the onset of the genocide, and they had sufficient resources to either mitigate or prevent the slaughter that ensued.

The failure of the Security Council to prevent the genocide has been regarded as the highest level of inadequacy in civic courage and international will. The cases of Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia and Bosnia formed the basis for the contemporary debate on intervention policy. The result has been the emergence of serious divergence in perspective within the international community. The most pertinent issues in this controversy regard the inadequate or excessive involvement of the international community in resolving conflicts that have resulted in massive loss of life, displacement of communities and infringement on basic human rights.

The UN Generally Assembly was obliged to respond to increased controversy on the subject of intervention for humanitarian purposes. The beginning of this response was the address given by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in September 1999 to the UN General assembly. Key actors and their Roles in International Processes In his address to the General assembly in 1999, Annan implored the international community to reflect upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century”.

By recounting on the failures of the Security Council especially in Rwanda and Kosovo, Annan challenged member states to focus on their common purpose of upholding principles enshrined in the charter, which require them to act decisively in defense of common humanity. In highlighting the dilemma and challenge that the Security Council faced, Annan stated that the question of sovereignty should not be an impediment to humanitarian intervention. The Government of Canada responded by establishing the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).

ICISS was mandated to explore possibilities of reconciling the concept of state sovereignty, and the challenge of appropriate intervention for purposes of human rights protection. The primary objective of the commission was to forge a global political consensus that would enable the United Nations to play a more effective role in human rights protection. To this end, the commission sought to consolidate perspectives of both developed and developing nations in order to present a representative perspective that reflected the different opinions, viewpoints and experiences regarding the debate on intervention The 21st century has witnessed the emergence of a new set of challenges distinctively different from those that preoccupied the international community in 1945 when the United Nations was established.

Read More