Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

In this reprint of a chapter from Giovanna Bono's book The Impact of 11 September 2001 & the "War on Terror" on European Foreign & Security Policy (2006), the author challenges the assumption that the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) is emerging as a legal norm in international relations, but rather the debate is fraught with misunderstandings & hidden agendas. Demonstration that the principle is barely a political commitment assesses the International Commission on Intervention & State Sovereignty (ICISS) & the UN World Summit of September 2005 to identify a lack of political commitment & will, & that no consensus has been achieved on fully legal grounds. Analysis of the position of the EU toward R2P supports the argument that the normative identity of EU security & defense policy better equips the EU to implement R2P, although the EU has never pledged support for a unilateral right to intervene. The partial success of the R2P is concluded to be related to the UN members hold on the sovereignty principles, the ideological changes occurring at the international stage, & the overlooking by academics of the role of power. References. J. Harwell

Brazil has actively participated in the debate around the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) doctrine. More recently, Brazil has even proposed what it believes to be a new approach—the 'Responsibility while Protecting' (RwP) corollary to R2P. By launching its own rendition for R2P, Brazil has attempted to reinforce the role of the UN Security Council in two different ways: First, in restricting the use of force on the grounds of 'Responsibility to Protect,' which, according to Brazilian diplomatic reasoning, would hinge upon a multilateral assessment of the situation — a condition expected to considerably diminish the arbitrariness in decision making with respect to the use of force. Second, Brazil aimed to highlight the necessity of reform in the UNSC, since, from a Brazilian viewpoint, the decisions of this organ must be representative in order to discharge new tasks assigned to it. Notwithstanding, Brazil's diplomatic proposal has arguably failed to gain massive support from the countries that compose the UN Security Council political establishment and seems now to be forgotten. This paper aims to provide an account on the Brazilian reaction to "Responsibility to Protect" and its first consequences.

In revisiting a selection of the literature about this topic, this article briefly considers the historical development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the gap between legality and legitimacy it is designed to bridge. It goes on to critically reflect upon its application in Libya, arguing that R2P is posed as a simple solution to a complex problem. It considers how this intervention represents the culmination of a legal trajectory that finds it origins in colonialism. While it remains a rhetorically compelling legal doctrine, it falls apart in practice. Such an outcome behoves international legal thinkers to reflect upon the normative value of the doctrine and critically consider humanitarian objectives when they are used to justify war. At present, failure to do so is gravely undermining the legitimacy and universality of international law. If international legal thinkers are genuinely committed to upholding universal human rights principles, an alternative must be to create consistency in how crimes against humanity are defined and acted upon. The example of Libya raises fundamental questions as to the capacity of international law to create pathways to peace and justice.

"This edited volume critically examines the widely supported doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', and investigates the claim that it embodies progressive values in international politics. Since the United Nations World Summit of 2005, a remarkable consensus has emerged in support of the doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) -- the idea that states and the international community bear a joint duty to protect peoples around the world from mass atrocities. While there has been plenty of discussion over how this doctrine can best be implemented, there has been no systematic criticism of the principles underlying R2P. This volume is the first critically to interrogate both the theoretical principles and the policy consequences of this doctrine. The authors in this collection argue that the doctrine of R2P does not in fact embody progressive values, and they explore the possibility that the R2P may undermine political accountability within states and international peace between them. This volume not only advances a novel set of arguments, but will also spur debate by offering views that are seldom heard in discussions of R2P. The aim of the volume is to bring a range of criticisms to bear from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including international law, political science, IR theory and security studies. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, human security, critical security studies and IR in general."--Provided by publisher.

Libyen, Elfenbeinküste, Südsudan - in diesen Fällen berief sich der UN-Sicherheitsrat 2011 in seinen Resolutionen auf die Schutzverantwortung (R2P). Doch in Syrien und im Sudan geht das Morden bis heute weiter, die internationale Gemeinschaft kann sich nicht auf ein gemeinsames Vorgehen einigen. Was sind Bilanz und Perspektiven der R2P? (IP)

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.

Echoing the call recently made by Ed and Dana Luck and building on a research project triggered several years ago by Siba Grovogui's postcolonial critique of the concept of responsibility to protect (R2P), this article explores the significance of what may be labeled individual R2P. It argues that acknowledging individual R2P as part of the doctrine not only highlights the role that a heretofore underappreciated layer of actors can and does play to protect individuals from some of the worst crimes. At the theoretical level, it also has the potential to mitigate some of the R2P doctrine's main ambiguities, while in real life, acknowledging individual R2P does, without exonerating institutional actors from their obvious responsibilities, recognize at the very least the right of people of conscience, worldwide, to take matters in their own hands even in the worst cases of international paralysis.

"Libyen, Elfenbeinküste, Südsudan - in diesen Fällen berief sich der UN-Sicherheitsrat 2011 in seinen Resolutionen auf die Schutzverantwortung (R2P). Doch in Syrien und im Sudan geht das Morden bis heute weiter, die internationale Gemeinschaft kann sich nicht auf ein gemeinsames Vorgehen einigen. Was sind Bilanz und Perspektiven der R2P?" (Autorenreferat)