The Responsibility to Protect Subjects of Other States - Report Example

The responsibility to protect s of other s Introduction The protection of the rights of individuals goes beyond the boundaries of a given country according to the united nation charter on human rights and protection. Within this charter, the rights of individuals in sovereign states troubled by instability and political conflict falls within the international laws and goes against the sovereignty needs of particular nations. Within some states for example Kosovo and Rwanda, political conflicts have graduated into wars that contravene the international charter on human rights. In such a situation, the responsibility of different states to ensure the protection of subject of different states is normally invoked. This results into a situation where different countries intervene through humanitarian aid and through military intervention to eliminate the prevailing abuse on the human rights of the subjects of the country1. However, there has been debate within the political science and international human law on the responsibilities of these states during intervention2. The paper will also highlight the reasons for these responsibilities and the reasons as to why states have no legal obligations to be responsible to these subjects. To highlight the benefits of these responsibilities or lack of it, the paper will provide case studies of situations in which the responsibility was witnessed and situations when none occurred. This will help in forming an opinion as whether the responsibilities to protect the rights of these subjects are necessary or not. What are rights? Human rights are currently considered as one of the most discussed concept within the international law discourse due to its impacts on the international arena and the devastation that lack of it has actually caused to citizens across the world. These are freedoms that all human beings are entitled to and which the government is not allowed removing. These rights include the basic rights to life, the freedom to express opinions without interference, equal treatment before the law among other fundamental rights. Human rights are entitlement of individual citizens, legal groups in a country and the government which is also given the legal mandate by law to ensure that these laws are upheld at all time3. Human rights fall under different categories and are thus protected by different sections of the law due to the importance placed on them by the international human rights gill. Naturally, ascribed laws are those that individuals do not earn because they are entitled to them by birth in any part of the world. No individual or government can therefore deny citizens these laws based on the race, religious inclination, creed or even gender due to the significance that the law places on them. The rule of law upholds these rights at all times making it difficult for the government or nay agency to limit them unless under certain circumstances supported by the constitution of a country4. Certain laws have been violated by governments and different government agencies depending on circumstance and the behaviour of the individuals affected.. These rights share common values, which defines the rights that should be enjoyed by all citizens of the country that have ratified these agreements5. The protection of these rights is the sole responsibility of the government and its agencies under normal circumstances and in stable situations in a country. However, in certain circumstances, the international bodies are within their legal mandate to intervene and ensure that the civil rights, liberties and rights of citizens are upheld. This occurs mostly during conflicts and political acrimony that results into the abuse of the basic rights of the subjects of such sovereign states. The intervention in the protection of the rights of subjects in sovereign states is covered under the humanitarian intervention law and the refugee law, one that binds most members of the United Nations6. The abuse of power by political leaders, which results into the development of policies meant to violate the basic human rights of individuals, can call for international intervention and the revocation of the responsibility to intervene law. Such interventions include the adoption of approaches that avoid the interference in the prevailing political situation but the elimination of abuse of the basic human rights of the subjects7. Reasons for international responsibility The governance at the national level is responsible for ensuring that the rights of its subjects are protected and upheld at all times, both during times of conflicts and during normalcy. However, this has rarely been the case in a number of countries and this has led to the development of the global governance, approaches that at the development of ways to ensure that the rights of subjects in foreign states are protected. Despite the continued protection of the rights of subjects of other states, the debate on whether a reason for this responsibility exists has continued to rage. Some individuals and scholars believe that there is no particular reason why other states should intervene in the protection of the rights of other subjects under foreign jurisdiction while others use the international human rights agreements to support their moves for intervening8. In this section, I will provide the reasons as to why the responsibility of protecting the rights of subjects in foreign states does actually exist. The responsibility to protect was carried in the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty in 2001 following widespread concern over the NATO intervention on the Kosovo and on other states that the world failed to intervene. Following widespread conflict in Kosovo, human rights abuses became rife as the state was unable to guarantee the freedom of its citizens at any cost. This attracted the intervention of the world though the NATO coalition that was meant to ensure that the rights of the Kosovo citizens were upheld throughout the crisis9. The intervention in Kosovo demonstrated that the world could no longer ignore the plight of the subjects of a state under anarchy due to sovereignty reasons as the international ratification makes human rights a global problem. When a state fails to recognize the need for protecting its citizens, the conflict shall escalate to a level where the innocent citizens are sucked into a political crisis and their livelihood affected because of this. The intervention in Kosovo demonstrated that through international intervention, the rights of the over exposed can be restored and normalcy to their lifestyles restored10. In the previous eyes, intervention was delayed on sovereignty and other reasons, which made it difficult for many states to intervene even in situations where the violation of subject’s rights was rife. This was done in the pretext that the mandate of protecting civilian rights rested on the government of the country and not any foreign power. However, political conflict results into instability in these governments which results into a situation where the governments become too much preoccupied with fighting for its existence as opposed to fighting for the rights of the citizens. In some cases, the government ceases to exist as different wrangling units control the major resources of the country making it difficult to guarantee the freedom of the citizens at any cost. Failure to take responsibility and protect the rights of these subjects as was witnessed in Rwanda in 1994 can result into mass massacre and genocide. Such wars change from the struggle to control the resources of the country to a witch-hunt of specific communities and races, resulting into mass killings of members of a specific religion, tribe or creed. This makes it the responsibility of the international community to protect the rights of the subjects of the foreign states especially if the government lacks the ability or legal mandate to guarantee the same11. In the presence of large-scale violation of human rights, it becomes a diffused responsibility on the part of humanity in totality to act and protect the victims from the perpetrators. Such responsibility may be sanctioned by the united national security council or not since the violation of human rights may be too gross to wait for a ratification by the council. In the previous past, the council has delayed in making an intervention decision and this has created room for continued violation of human rights that has resulted into deaths and destruction of sources of livelihood. With this in mind, the responsibility to protect subjects of states whose rights are under gross violation becomes the moral role of any country. Intervention through the United Nations sanctions exists but this can only be waited for in situations where the gross violation can be controlled and not in instances where the conflict has spiralled out of control as was witnessed in Somali in 199112. The responsibility to ensure the enjoyment of freedom result into the protection of lives and properties and the prevention of the continued abuse. In the previous past, countries that have intervened in the internal conflicts of other states have managed to restore normalcy and nip the conflict long before it could escalate into a genocide level conflict. However, in instances when intervention have been delayed or not given at all on the pretext of lack of responsibility, human lives and continued anarchy has been witnessed13. When the world acted on its responsibility to uphold human rights protection during the conflicts in Liberia in 1990, northern Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994, Sierra Leone in 1997 and east Timor in 1999, the controversy was muted and normalcy restored14. This demonstrated that the responsibility to protect if well used could unsure that a country recovers from the routes of self-destruction to restructuring as was witnessed in the four countries. However, in countries where the responsibility to protect the rights of subjects in such states was withheld, the conflict escalated and the countries took more than long to regain normalcy and elect a functional government. For example, the failure of states like the united kingdom to intervene and protect the rights of subjects in countries like Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia resulted into widespread destruction of human life and the violation of the human rights due to lack of a proper functional government to uphold its responsibility and protect the lives of the people. The ideals that people are equal in worth and dignity, as contained in the international human rights charter, makes it the responsibility of the international community to uphold their duties and ensure that the world does not witness a second Rwanda15. If all humans are considered equal, the suffering of others and the violation of their human rights irrespective of the integrity of their sovereignty becomes and international responsibility. Such a situation is not isolated case of abuse to rights of people are considered equal and universal. Our responsibility to protect must consider the plights of the other subjects and put ourselves in their situations according to the international human rights convention in order to inform our decisions of whether to act or not16. Although the responsibility to protect is primarily owned by the government of such states, the international community must ensure that their responsibility to protect is upheld in instances where such states abdicate their roles. With the advances in international law and humanitarian policies, the view of the world has significantly changed concerning the role of states as far as human rights protection and violation is concerned. Even among individuals who argue that the sovereignty of states makes it no one’s responsibility to intervene during cases of human rights abuses agree that no state today has unlimited powers that enable them do whatever they want to its people. Independence and sovereignty is today a two-tie principle that involves the ability of a state to respect and uphold the sovereignty of other states while upholding and protecting the rights and dignity of the citizens internally17. As a result of this widely agreed notion, when violation of these rights occur, the sovereignty of that state cannot be used as an excuse to let the citizens of that country suffer. The failure to embrace the dual responsibility initiates the responsibility of other states to ensure that the rights of the subjects in these states are protected and withheld according to international standards18. Reasons why we lack the responsibility to protect While the logical end of the debate requires the invocation of the responsibility to ensure that the rights of subjects in a state are protected, some have argued that we lack the responsibility to intervene. The united nation recognizes the independence of different states ad makes it clear that the primary protector of human rights is the government elected by the people or a monarch system of government. Even in situations where a conflict ensues and the government lacks the ability to protect the rights its people or decide to violate the rights of its people, our responsibility to intervene is limited19. The limitation of our responsibilities comes from the fact that these are independent states with independent boundaries whose internal events do not affect us. Intervening in such state to ensure that the rights of the citizens are protected violates their territorial integrity and results into intrusion by a foreign state20. The united nations security council is mandate by the international charter and laws made after the end of the second world war to assess situations of gross violation of human rights and advise appropriately on the way forward. In cases of internal conflict that may be seen to result into gross violation of human rights, it is the responsibility of the united nation security council to develop an intervention measure and implement it according to its mandate to ensure that the violation of human rights in this states are controlled. Our responsibility to protect such subjects is therefore limited by the powers of the United Nations Security Council, the organ that is mandated to act in such cases21. Exercising the responsibility to intervene and restore normalcy in independent countries requires massive resources and labor, a situation that may strain a country’s security system and compromise its security. In purporting to exercise our responsibility to protect, the issues of resources and human life must be considered and the extent of the sacrifices that the country is willing to make evaluated. States in anarchy and internal conflict can be dangerous places for foreign forces and troops even if their rules are limited to offering humanitarian assistance and ensuring that the rights of the subjects are protected22. Exercising this responsibility must be weighed on the number of lives and resources we are willing to destroy to save other foreign lives in a foreign country with territorial integrity. We cannot therefore purport to uphold the restoration of human rights in foreign countries by exposing our own lives to dangers, our own resources to destruction and the integrity of our borders to external aggressors. For example, when the world delayed to intervene in the Somali situation that had widespread violation of human rights and the starvation of the subjects, the United States took the responsibility to protect the rights of the people23. As a result, marine forces were sent to protect humanitarian aid workers and ensure that food was delivered to the people who were suffering under the hand of Aidid, a Somali warlord. However, the country made significant sacrifices by exercising this responsibility as most of its soldiers were killed and its military resources massively destroyed in the operation dubbed ‘operation hawk down’. Responsibility to protect case studies A number of events have occurred around the world that have tested the responsibility to protect the rights of foreign citizens and the extent that other states can go to ensure that the human rights are upheld in these countries. Some have demonstrated the massive impacts that lack of exercising this responsibility can cause while others have shown the negative sides of intervening in an internal conflict that is not sanctioned by the united nations security council. To highlight the benefits of intervention and the impacts of failure of the international community to exercise their responsibility to protect, we shall look at the Rwanda case and how the international community contributed to its escalation24. The ratification of the United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide by President George Bush in 1989 signalled the readiness of the United States to protect other subjects from rights violation by their own governments. However, when the Rwandan genocide came calling, the united states failed to follow in its responsibility to ensure that the rights of the subjects was protected from tribal targeting, ethnic cleansing among others. While the country slowed on its responsibility to protect the subjects, massive destruction of human lives continued and this contributed to the much talked about Rwandan genocide25. This demonstrated the extent of responsibility to protect by countries even in situations where the integrity of such of states boundaries is in question. The Kosovo case however demonstrated the reasons as why other states should stay away from the happenings in independent states or at least way the impacts of their resources. The NATO intervention in Kosovo that was meant to ensure that the rights of the people were upheld posted mixed results. It failed in some areas as a number of NATO members lost their lives and property was destroyed and succeed in others by restoring the peace and normalcy in the country26. Conclusion In situations where the state losses the ability to protect this right, the international community assumes the responsibility to protect and ensure that the subjects’ rights are restored. The exercising of such responsibilities has been witnessed in various countries including Kosovo, Bosnia, east Timor among others and has created significant restoration of human rights27. However, there are instances where the responsibility to protect has been ignored and this has created massive abuse and destruction of human life. Bibliography Ahmed, R 2011, ‘A bloody sight. NATO’s leaders: Protecting to kill, killing to protect’, Global Research, Available at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26997 Akin, B 2010, ‘The Kosovo Crisis and the UN’, Available at: http://www.eurasiacritic.com/articles/kosovo-crisis-and-un Araujo, R 2000, Sovereignty, human rights, and self-determination: the meaning of international law, Fordham international law journal, 24(5), 1477-1532. Chesterman, S 2001, ‘Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesterman, S 2002, ‘Legality versus Legitimacy: Humanitarian Intervention, the Security Council, and the Rule of Law. Claes, J 2011, ‘Libya and the Responsibility to Protect’, Published: Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, Available at: http://www.usip.org/publications/libya-and-the-responsibility-protect Evans, G. & Sahnoun, M 2003, The responsibility to protect, foreign affairs, 81(6), 99-110. Foreign voices 2008, The responsibility to protect (R2P): a way forward or rather part of the problem. Forsythe, D 2000, Human rights and comparative foreign policy: foundation of peace, human rights and comparative foreign policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press Gierycz, D 2010, From humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect, criminal justice ethics, 110-128. Kuperman, A 2001, The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide in Rwanda, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kuperman, A 2009, Rethinking the responsibility to protect, the whitehead journal of diplomacy and international relations. Malmvig, H 2006, ‘State Sovereignty and Intervention. A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-interventionary practices in Kosovo and Algeria’, London: Routledge. Martha, F 2004, The Purpose Of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About The Use Of Force, New York: Cornell University Press. Miller, D 2006, The responsibility to protect human rights, Nuffield College, Oxford. Penketh, A 2011, ‘Whatever happened to Responsibility to Protect? The Foreign Desk - International dispatches from Independent correspondents, Available at: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/13/whatever-happened-toresponsibility-to-protect/ Stahn, C 2007, Responsibility to protect: political rhetoric or emerging legal norm, the American journal of international law, 101(1), 99-120. Stubblebine, M 2011, Responsibility to protect: a policy analysis on the cost of protecting human life. William and Mary policy review, 2(237), 347-388. Thakur, R 2011, ‘The Responsibility to Protect- norms, laws and the use of force in International Politics, New York: Routledge. Thakur, R. 2011, The Responsibility to Protect- norms, laws and the use of force in International Politics-, New York: Routledge. United Nations University (2010) Kosovo crisis legacy: nations can forfeit sovereignty Available at: http://unu.edu/hq/ginfo/media/kosovo.html. Welsh, J 2004, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N 2000, ‘Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention in International Society’, Oxford: University Press, pp. 242-284. Read More