Suchergebnisse

A contribution to a panel debate on, The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), notes the establishment of an international moral imperative to uphold human rights & the emergence of a R2P norm following the end of the Cold War. There is concern that humanitarian intervention could be a cover for military intervention by the powerful for strategic reasons. Other matters discussed include establishment of the R2P as international law & obstacles to the implementation of R2P principles posed by the War on Terror. Adapted from the source document.

The principle of state sovereignty is the cornerstone upon which international law has traditionally been constructed, in particular with regards to the twin principles of sovereign equality and the prohibition of external interference in the domestic jurisdiction of a state. The increasing importance of international institutions, most notably the United Nations (UN), in global governance has challenged this primacy of sovereignty, in particular with regards to absolutist 'Westphalian' conceptions of the principle, and consequently has posed questions regarding how this evolution has impacted the law's theoretical foundations and fundamental precepts. One such challenge to Westphalian sovereignty is the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) doctrine, a 'soft law' norm that seeks to empower the international community to take action to halt or prevent atrocity crimes, including a provision for UN Security Council-authorised military action to be undertaken as a last resort. This thesis seeks to examine how R2P has impacted the contemporary functioning of sovereignty, particularly focusing upon the actions of UN-authorised forces in Côte d'Ivoire and Libya in 2011 and the international response to the Syrian Civil War (from 2011 onwards). It argues that the conditional variant of sovereignty central to the conception of R2P has, through a decoupling of governmental sovereignty from popular sovereignty, the potential to transform the international legal system from one grounded in the horizontality of the Westphalian structure into a more hierarchical arrangement of relationships between the UN, governments and the populations of states. The thesis further examines the impact of this shift upon the limits to UN Security Council power (in particular regarding the question of regime change) and the content of the right to self-determination, and analyses how this transformation is threatened by interpretative cleavages over the content of sovereignty between Western states and the so-called 'BRICS' (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we will try to show how the idea of the "responsibility to protect" gained terrain in the circles of international lawyers and theorists during the last ten years, as well as the very debatable issues raised by it. Secondly -and this constitutes the stake of our approach- we will address the broader discussion of the link between R2P and the problem of state sovereignty, by arguing that the emergence of this new international obligation is merely a hypostasis of a general malaise of the traditional state sovereignty. We will then conclude by assessing the impact of the new norm of R2P to the recent political developments in the Middle East, in order to grasp the direction into which the practice is evolving in this field.

The responsibility to protect ('R2P') principle articulates the obligations of the international community to prevent conflict occurring, to intervene in conflicts, and to assist in rebuilding after conflicts. The doctrine is about protecting civilians in armed conflicts from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This book examines interventions in East Timor, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Kosovo. The chapters explore and question UN debates with respect to the doctrine both before and after its adoption in 2005; contrasting state attitudes to international military intervention; and what takes place after intervention. It also discusses the ability of the Security Council to access reliable information and credible and transparent processes to enable it to make a determination on the occurrence of atrocities in a Member State. Questioning whether there is a need to find a closer operational link between the responsibilities to prevent and react and a normative link between R2P and principles of international law, the contributions examine the effectiveness of the framework of R2P for international decision-making in response to mass atrocity crimes and ask how an international system to deal with threats and mass atrocities can be developed in the absence of a central authority. This book will be valuable to those interested in international law, human rights, and security, peace and conflict studies.

As state members of the international community recognize the need to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and to protect the world people from their impacts, the doctrine of 'Responsibility to Protect' has been developed and promoted since the United Nations General Assembly – World Summit 2005. Thereby, it is not only a state's responsibility to prevent and protect its citizens from the abovementioned crimes, but also the responsibility of the world community to help preventing, intervening, and rebuilding when such crimes happen. However, after its promotion in 2005, the world community still struggles to intervene effectively on the on-going conflict between Israel and the Hamas party representing the Palestinians. This paper looks back the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip in 2007 and indicates several limitations in the implementation of this doctrine, as well as to emphasize the crucial role of 'prevention' part, especially in case where crimes against humanity occur because of incomplete resolve of war crimes.

This volume examines the ongoing construction of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, elaborating on areas of both consolidation and contestation. The book focuses on how the R2P doctrine has been both consolidated and contested along three dimensions, regarding its meaning, status and application. The first focuses on how the R2P should be understood in a theoretical sense, exploring it through the lens of the International Relations constructivist approach and through different toolkits available to conventional and critical constructivists. The second focuses on how the R2P interacts with other normative frameworks, and how this interaction can lead to a range of effects from mutual reinforcement and co-evolution through to unanticipated feedback that can undermine consensus and flexibility. The third focuses on how key state actors – including the United States, China and Russia – understand, use and contest the R2P. Together, the book's chapters demonstrate that broad aspects of the R2P are consolidated in the sense that they are accepted by states even while other, specific aspects, remain subject to contestation in practice and in policy.

Die ?Responsibility to Protect? ist ein neues Prinzip im Völkerrecht, das sich nach den schweren Menschenrechtsverbrechen in den 1990er Jahren entwickelt hat. Den Vereinten Nationen wurde damals von vielen Seiten ein Versagen attestiert. Als Reaktion darauf bildete sich die R2P-Doktrin, welche die Verantwortung der Staaten betont, ihre Völker vor Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, ethnischen Säuberungen und Völkermord zu schützen. Kann oder will ein Staat seiner Schutzverantwortung nicht nachkommen, so überträgt sich die Pflicht gemäß der Richtlinie auf die internationale Gemeinschaft. Als allerletzte Möglichkeit kann die R2P eine militärische Intervention, unter Zustimmung des Weltsicherheitsrates, legitimieren. Bis dato wurde diese Option 2011 in Libyen angewandt. In dem zurzeit andauernden syrischen Bürgerkrieg konnte sich der UN-Sicherheitsrat noch nicht auf den Gebrauch der R2P zu einer militärischen Interaktion einigen, da dies von den Vetomächten blockiert wird. Das Konzept der R2P stellt bislang keine Rechtsnorm dar, weswegen der Umgang mit dem Prinzip Fragen aufwirft. Diese Masterarbeit soll klären, inwieweit Menschen einander zur gegenseitigen Hilfe verpflichtet sind und ob die R2P in ihrer momentanen Form dafür als legitime Grundlage dienen kann. Das Argument lautet, dass eine solche Verpflichtung zur Hilfeleistung besteht, nach dem Prinzip des Kategorischen Imperativs. Infolge müsste diese Pflicht auch auf Staaten zu übertragen sein, weswegen eine rechtliche Normierung der R2P zweckmäßig erscheint. Dazu wird zunächst der Begriff der staatlichen Souveränität definiert, welche durch einen externen Eingriff beschränkt wird. Die anschließende philosophische Auseinandersetzung, welche mit Praxisbeispielen sowie einer Aussicht für das Konzept der Weltstaatlichkeit abschließt, soll zeigen, welche Richtung die R2P einnimmt ? Schutzpflicht oder reine Interventionserlaubnis? ; The ?Responsibility to Protect? is one of the newer principles applied to International Law, which was initiated after the incidents of severe violations against human rights in the 1990s. The United Nations were accused of having failed to protect these rights. As a consequence, the R2P doctrine evolved. It stresses the responsibility of all of the states to protect their people from war crimes, crimes againt humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide. If a state is not able or willing to take on its responsibility to protect, the duty is assigned to the international community. With the consent of the World Security Council a military intervention can be authorised as last resort, due to the principle of the R2P. So far, this option has been carried out in Libya in 2011. The UN Security Council has not yet agreed upon interfering in the current persisting Syrian Civil War by using this final option, due to the blocking by the veto powers. Up to now the concept of R2P does not constitute a legal norm. This is why the approach to the principle raises questions. To begin with, this paper investigates to which extent we as people are obliged to help one another and whether the consisting principle of R2P can be used as legitmiate basis in its present form. First and foremost the argument states that there is a duty to help each other, according to the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Hence this duty also ought to be assigned to states. Therefore it seems appropriate for the R2P to become a legal norm. Fur this purpose the notion of state sovereignty, which is being restricted by an external interference, will be determined at first. The following philosophical discussion, which is concluded by giving practical examples and an outlook for the concept of Global Governance, will show which direction the R2P is going to take ? an obligation to protect or purely a permission to intervene? ; vorgelegt von Verena Schaupp ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung der Verfasserin/des Verfassers ; Zsfassungen in dt. und engl. Sprache ; Text teilw. dt., teilw. eng. ; Graz, Univ., Masterarb., 2014 ; (VLID)251991

At the UN World Summit in 2005, world leaders agreed an outcome document that formalised the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as 'an emerging international security and human rights norm'. When UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced that the world had taken 'collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity', it appeared that a new era in international cooperation had arrived. This article explores three stages of R2P development from the 1990s to the present: the events that led to the idea and implementation of so-called humanitarian intervention, including the words and actions of Prime Minister Tony Blair in relation to Kosovo in 1999; the disputes that shaped negotiations surrounding R2P, highlighting how political compromise is embodied in the Responsibility to Protect text as an inherent weakness; while the final section uses events in Syria between 2011 and 2014 to explore the conflicting political interests that render the legal dimension of R2P impotent despite the enthusiastic support of its advocates. The article concludes that unremitting mutual opposition between Russia and Western members of the Security Council over Syria –fuelled in turn by geo-strategic and national interests as well as humanitarian concern –means that agreement on R2P and military intervention on humanitarian grounds is as far away as it was at the time of Blair's naively optimistic words in April 1999. The limits of R2P have been reached.

This article has an object to descript the problem of doctrine R2P and preventive humanitarian intervention. The multinational military operation in Libya in 2011 was the first operation conducted in accordance with the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). The Libyan operation became the first major test of the very tool of R2P policy (preventive humanitarian intervention); the operation has acquired a large military intervention to protect civilians from the threat of mass murders. Disputes over the mission in Libya continue to hamper the discussion of new such missions. A careful analysis of the concept provides an understanding of whether the use of R2P and preventive humanitarian intervention is possible under the current conditions of a global transformation of international relations. In the last two decades a lot of research has been conducted, but the ethical aspect of using armed force for preventive purposes as well as the question of the possibility of the existence of the R2P doctrine without the use of preventive humanitarian intervention requires further exploration. Therefore the purpose of the article is to analyze the main problems associated with the lack of understanding of the doctrine and the tools for implementing R2P, which has generated negative assessments of its use in practice. The problems inherent in the concept of preventive humanitarian intervention can not be fully resolved. They are and remain the attributes of this type of military operation and the very doctrine of R2P. But doctrine continues to enjoy international support as a set of general principles. This doctrine also covers non-military elements from observing human rights to various types of international assistance aimed at reducing the risk of mass atrocities. The problems are primarily due to the "war pillar" of R2P: prone to illegality, human and financial costs, the extension of the mandate, and hypocrisy. Each of these problems is complicated in itself, and their interaction intensifies each other. As a result any attempts to use the compulsory tools of the R2P doctrine are doomed to a poor result both for the interventionists and for the doctrine itself. ; Стаття має на меті характеристику доктрини «обов'язку захищати» (R2P) та превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції. Багатонаціональна військова операція у Лівії стала першим серйозним випробуванням самого інструмента політики R2P (превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції), та придбала масштаби великого військового втручання для захисту мирних жителів від погрози масових убивств. Дискусії навколо місії у Лівії гальмують впровадження нових місій такого типу. Ретельний аналіз концепції допоможе розумінню чи взагалі доктрина «обов'язку захищати» (R2P) та превентивна гуманітарна інтервенція можуть використовуватися у сучасних умовах глобальної трансформації міжнародних відносин. За останні двадцять років багато досліджень було проведено, але етичний аспект використання збройної сили у превентивних цілях, як і питання можливості існування доктрини (R2P) без превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції, потребують подальшого дослідження. Тому метою статті є проаналізувати головні проблеми, пов'язані з браком розуміння доктрини R2P та її інструментів, що породило негативні оцінки їх використання на практиці. Проблеми, притаманні концепції превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції, залишаються атрибутами цього типу військової операції й самої доктрини R2P. Але доктрина продовжує користуватися міжнародною підтримкою. Крім того, доктрина охоплює невоєнні елементи від спостереження за дотриманням прав людини до різних видів міжнародної допомоги, спрямованих на зниження ризиків масових злодіянь. Проблеми виникають перш за все із воєнним «стовпом» R2P; з ним пов'язана схильність до незаконності, людські й фінансові витрати, ймовірне розширення попереднього мандату, лицемірство акторів. Взаємодія цих факторів підсилює одна одну й у результаті будь-які спроби використовувати примусові інструменти доктрини R2P приречені на поганий результат як для інтервентів, так й для самої доктрини.

This article has an object to descript the problem of doctrine R2P and preventive humanitarian intervention. The multinational military operation in Libya in 2011 was the first operation conducted in accordance with the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). The Libyan operation became the first major test of the very tool of R2P policy (preventive humanitarian intervention); the operation has acquired a large military intervention to protect civilians from the threat of mass murders. Disputes over the mission in Libya continue to hamper the discussion of new such missions. A careful analysis of the concept provides an understanding of whether the use of R2P and preventive humanitarian intervention is possible under the current conditions of a global transformation of international relations. In the last two decades a lot of research has been conducted, but the ethical aspect of using armed force for preventive purposes as well as the question of the possibility of the existence of the R2P doctrine without the use of preventive humanitarian intervention requires further exploration. Therefore the purpose of the article is to analyze the main problems associated with the lack of understanding of the doctrine and the tools for implementing R2P, which has generated negative assessments of its use in practice. The problems inherent in the concept of preventive humanitarian intervention can not be fully resolved. They are and remain the attributes of this type of military operation and the very doctrine of R2P. But doctrine continues to enjoy international support as a set of general principles. This doctrine also covers non-military elements from observing human rights to various types of international assistance aimed at reducing the risk of mass atrocities. The problems are primarily due to the "war pillar" of R2P: prone to illegality, human and financial costs, the extension of the mandate, and hypocrisy. Each of these problems is complicated in itself, and their interaction intensifies each other. As a result any attempts to use the compulsory tools of the R2P doctrine are doomed to a poor result both for the interventionists and for the doctrine itself. ; Стаття має на меті характеристику доктрини «обов'язку захищати» (R2P) та превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції. Багатонаціональна військова операція у Лівії стала першим серйозним випробуванням самого інструмента політики R2P (превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції), та придбала масштаби великого військового втручання для захисту мирних жителів від погрози масових убивств. Дискусії навколо місії у Лівії гальмують впровадження нових місій такого типу. Ретельний аналіз концепції допоможе розумінню чи взагалі доктрина «обов'язку захищати» (R2P) та превентивна гуманітарна інтервенція можуть використовуватися у сучасних умовах глобальної трансформації міжнародних відносин. За останні двадцять років багато досліджень було проведено, але етичний аспект використання збройної сили у превентивних цілях, як і питання можливості існування доктрини (R2P) без превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції, потребують подальшого дослідження. Тому метою статті є проаналізувати головні проблеми, пов'язані з браком розуміння доктрини R2P та її інструментів, що породило негативні оцінки їх використання на практиці. Проблеми, притаманні концепції превентивної гуманітарної інтервенції, залишаються атрибутами цього типу військової операції й самої доктрини R2P. Але доктрина продовжує користуватися міжнародною підтримкою. Крім того, доктрина охоплює невоєнні елементи від спостереження за дотриманням прав людини до різних видів міжнародної допомоги, спрямованих на зниження ризиків масових злодіянь. Проблеми виникають перш за все із воєнним «стовпом» R2P; з ним пов'язана схильність до незаконності, людські й фінансові витрати, ймовірне розширення попереднього мандату, лицемірство акторів. Взаємодія цих факторів підсилює одна одну й у результаті будь-які спроби використовувати примусові інструменти доктрини R2P приречені на поганий результат як для інтервентів, так й для самої доктрини.

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty (ICISS) proposed rethinking on sovereignty through the prism of a new concept: the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). Several years after, its message has been achieved? This is answer to this question that, in the aftermath of the Arab spring, at the end of an intervention that is controversial in Libya and in the face of the Syrian drama, we decided to make an evaluation, by analyzing this doctrine. From details of methodological of the purpose of this article, the review of the legal framework of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) in international law is based on pre-existing concepts and rules that are sometimes approached such as the international responsibility and criminal responsibility priori conceptualization of the "Responsibility to Protect", will be the first axis of this study. In the second, axis the responsibility to protect the population rests primarily on the territorial State against war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing. It must be stated that the obligation to protect the concerned State, was necessary before the States itself by establishing international legal standards. If the State is not willing to do or unable, the subsidiary protective role is the responsibility of other actors.The reality of major obstacles reduces the effective implementation on the ground of the "Responsibility to Protect". These obstacles can be linked with the same design of it, just as they may result from external causes that could make inoperative the responsibility to protect in view of the situation, the international community application does not rely on the implementation of the responsibility to protect in some cases that meet, however, all the conditions to act within this framework. In the third axis of this study, it will be also a review of the operational legal framework.The United Nations has adopted several resolutions on the "Responsibility to Protect", examining not only their support to the doctrine, but also their willingness to authorize the deployment of peacekeeping operations and to adopt resolutions in support of military intervention paragraph. But the Security Council of the United Nations has not always been unanimous about the situations to which the "responsibility to protect" applies. The case of Darfur and the crisis of the Syria, there was something else, they were exemplary cases of the application of the "Responsibility to Protect" inertia, and the different responses by the international community in the face of these crises, will allow us in the Fourth axis of interesting conclusions about the difficulties in the application thereof.