Suchergebnisse

This article engages with the debate on the efficacy of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the wake of the Arab Spring by articulating a defence of its role in preventing the commission, escalation, or recurrence of atrocity crimes. Taking as its starting point the claim by UN Secretary-General (UNSG) Ban Ki-moon that prevention remains the most important aspect of the principle of R2P, the article illustrates the extent to which prevention is embedded in R2P, the means by which it can be leveraged, and the obstacles to its operationalisation. The first section outlines why and how the prevention of the four crimes identified in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document became so important to UN member states. The second section analyses efforts to implement the commitment to prevention within the UN, regional organisations, and individual states. The final section offers an explanation for why prevention is in fact a controversial practice – despite the universal rhetorical commitment to its prioritisation – and advances a series of steps which might be undertaken to advance it.

Although the humanitarian rationale for the use of force has gained legitimacy, the consensus around this legitimacy … has remained both narrow and fragile.

As noted by other contributors to this roundtable, the response of the international community to civilian deaths in Libya—and the threat of further mass atrocities—is unusual in two key respects. First, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized "all necessary measures" to protect civilians without the consent of the "host" state. The Council's intentions, and actions, could not be interpreted as anything other than coercive. Second, in contrast to other crises involving alleged crimes against humanity (most notably Darfur), diplomacy produced a decisive response in a relatively short period of time. Both of these features suggest that many analysts of intervention (including myself) need to revise their previously pessimistic assessments of what is possible in contemporary international politics.

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on the report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 'Implementing the Responsibility to Protect', which was released on 12 January 2009. The report was written as a response to 'one of the cardinal challenges of our time, as posed in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome: operationalizing the responsibility to protect'. The forum seeks to provide a range of perspectives on the report. It features contributions from Jennifer Welsh, Hugo Slim, David Chandler and Monica Serrano, and it concludes with a response from Special Advisor to the Secretary-General Edward Luck.

AbstractThe principle of the responsibility to protect (RtoP) conceives of a broad set of measures that can be employed in preventing and responding to atrocity crimes. Nevertheless, the UN Security Council remains an important part of the implementation architecture, given what the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty referred to as its authoritative position in international society as the "linchpin of order and stability." As part of the roundtable "The Responsibility to Protect in a Changing World Order: Twenty Years since Its Inception," this review of the Council's role in fulfilling its responsibility to protect advances two somewhat contrasting arguments about the original ICISS report. First, it suggests that the commissioners may have underestimated the Council's potential contribution, by concentrating on the authorization of coercive means to address crises of human protection. Over the past two decades, the Security Council has not only employed various diplomatic, political, and humanitarian measures to address atrocity crimes but also adjusted the purposes and practices of peace operations to advance protection goals and more subtly shaped discourses and expectations about state responsibilities for protection. However, I also argue that the willingness of the ICISS to identify potential alternatives to the Security Council when its members are paralyzed appears in retrospect to have been both bold and forward looking, in light of the Council's failures to act in a timely and decisive manner to protect amid crises and the contemporary realities of geopolitical rivalry. The article concludes by suggesting that future efforts to protect populations from atrocity crimes should focus not only on the herculean task of trying to change the behavior of P5 members of the Council but also on encouraging a new institutional balance between the Security Council and other intergovernmental bodies.

AbstractThis commentary focuses on Kratochwil's observation about the gap between the pervasiveness of human rights language and its susceptibility to perverse effects and abuse. After demonstrating that Kratochwil shares much of the contemporary skepticism about the alleged foundations and legitimacy of human rights, the comment elaborates on his claims that human rights were and are particularistic and that 'rights talk' produces unintended consequences for the individuals whose autonomy was meant to flourish. He questions but ultimately does not answer whether the broader anthropocentric ethos that underpins Western societies, and legal systems, may one day be superseded by 'non-rightist' approaches.