June 29, 2005
The Responsibility to Protect, By Jonathan William Barr
If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to gross and systemic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?
This controversial question posed by Kofi Annan has no straightforward answers, as the international order is a complex mix of actors. However, with the increasing interdependence and inter-connectedness that has been the product of globalization; we are truly becoming a world community. There has and continues to be efforts to bring forth a cosmopolitan view of international conflict management. This article will focus on one of those initiatives, which is the responsibility to protect(R2P).
All too often, the world has experience massive atrocities, where civilian populations are effected by internal strife. The increasing trend towards internal conflicts means that the world community needs a proper approach to confront these situations. One of the dire consequences of conflict situations is that they often lead to internally displaced persons and women and children can be directly targeted. Humanitarian intervention aims at alleviating these problems, which are so deeply connected with war situations. The effects of war are never positive, therefore, we must avoid the situation that occurred in Rwanda, where international inaction left large numbers of innocent civilians dead. Humanitarian intervention is extremely controversial because the entire international system is built on state sovereignty and the norm of intervention enshrined in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter. Therefore, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty argues that the expressions "humanitarian intervention" or "right to intervene" do not bring forth positive debate; thus, the expression "responsibility to protect". Essentially, R2P builds on the view that we have a collective obligation to ensure that innocent civilians are not hurt by the scourges of war. In its report, the ICISS outlines its central theme that "sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, "from mass murder and rape, from starvation, "but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states." R2P implies a moral obligation on the international community to confront genocide and gross violations of human rights.
Accordingly, R2P centers on two basic principles, consistent with the notion of sovereignty as responsibility, both internally and externally. Firstly, the report says that "state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility of the protection of its peoples lies with the state itself." Secondly, that "where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression, or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect." Thus, the importance of ensuring security to innocent civilians remains with the state; however, the international community has an obligation to intervene when states cannot protect their citizens.
The proposed conditions for intervention are explicit and concise. There are two situations identified by R2P as constituting serious irrevocable danger: "Either large scale loss of life due to deliberate state action, inaction or inability to act, or large scale 'ethnic cleansing' carried out not only by killing, but forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape." The criteria for military intervention is based right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects. Thus, the rationale of R2P revolves around strict rules concerning intervention and the report is quick to make note that military intervention should only be a last resort. Notably, this was done to ensure concrete criteria, which avoids a situation where half the world could be claiming justifiable intervention. Furthermore, R2P entails not just a responsibility to protect and react but a responsibility to prevent, addressing both root causes and direct causes of internal crises and the responsibility to rebuild. R2P sets appropriate guidelines for responding to gross violations of human rights and genocide because it focuses on all aspects of conflict situations. It is an integrated approach, focused on creating peace in situations where the state in question lacks an ability to ameliorate the conflict. Moreover, R2P is consistent with the trend of globalization, recognizing that in an inter-dependent world; we are all responsible for each other.
Author: Jonathan William Barr
Posted on June 29, 2005 10:23 PM