PDA

View Full Version : Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All



marct
02-12-2008, 11:14 PM
This is being sponsored by my department and I have been asked to distribute it. It's at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada



COVE Public Lecture

Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect: From Theory to Practice

Thursday, February 28, 2008
8:00 pm
102 Azrieli Theatre
Speaker: Louise Fréchette

Currently a distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation of Waterloo, Madame Fréchette was Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations (1998 to 2006), Ambassador to Argentina and Uruguay (1985-1988), Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1992-1994), Associate Deputy Minister of Finance (1995), and Deputy Minister of National Defence (1995-1998). She is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Trudeau Foundation and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

Abstract:
The end of the Cold war marked the beginning of a new era for Human rights. With more countries embracing democracy and the rule of law, the international community was able to agree on many initiatives aimed at strengthening international human rights institutions. It also adopted a more interventionist stance, deploying new- style peace missions charged with much more than just monitoring ceasefires. The concept of the “responsibility to protect” which embodies this new vision was formally adopted in the fall of 2005, thanks in large part to the efforts of Canada. Its application in the numerous cases of gross abuse of human rights still raging in various parts of the world is proving problematic, however. With the political winds changing and sobering experiences on the ground, how strong is the commitment to Human rights and the “responsibility to protect”? Are the improvements in international Human Rights cooperation irreversible or are we at risk of reverting to the times when sovereignty and non-intervention reigned supreme?


Co-sponsored by Carleton University’s Centre on Values and Ethics, the Centre for Security and Defence Studies, and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

As a side note, if you are in Ottawa and are going to attend, shoot me a PM.



Marc

Rex Brynen
02-13-2008, 11:58 PM
It would be interesting to hear what Louise Fréchette has to say.

I'm struck how much the entire language of R2P has been struck from the current (Harper) government's vocabulary because it is viewed as a Liberal invention--even though the concept could be quite usefully deployed in support of the current Canadian ISAF mission.

SWJ Blog
03-28-2011, 07:30 AM
Libya and the Responsibility to Protect (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/libya-and-the-responsibility-t/)

Entry Excerpt:

Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
by Charli Carpenter

Download the Full Article: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/719-carpenter1.pdf)

There has been a fair amount of debate over Obama’s decision to join Western powers in using force to protect civilians in Libya. Among various refrains is the claim that “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine lacks moral strength if applied selectively.

According to this line of thinking, the international community can’t legitimately go after Qaddafi if it won’t/can’t also go after every other dictator. However, it is important to recall that R2P doctrine, as laid out by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and acknowledged as a legal principle in several multilateral documents, actually promotes military force for civilian protection not in every case where it might be merited, but rather only in limited circumstances mapping roughly onto just war theory.

Download the Full Article: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/719-carpenter1.pdf)

Charli Carpenter, Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, is the author of two books on the protection of civilians. She blogs about human security and asymmetric warfare at The Duck of Minerva (http://www.duckofminerva.blogspot.com/) and Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/).



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/libya-and-the-responsibility-t/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
09-20-2011, 01:21 PM
R2P is the New COIN? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/r2p-is-the-new-coin)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/r2p-is-the-new-coin) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

MikeF
01-06-2012, 10:32 AM
Who has a responsibility to protect the people of this world?

davidbfpo
01-06-2012, 11:39 AM
MikeF,

This concept is not new and I'm sure JMM will chime in from the international law aspect. My own historical understanding is that it really came to have an impact after 1918, principally through the post-war treaties in Europe and the League of Nations work, again mainly in Europe, e.g. Silesia. Within a relatively short time history shows the concept, let alone the practice died and has had periods of life again, principally via the UN.

IMHO it is a mixture of shame and politics - invariably after genocide, border changes - not regime change.

In 2011 certain advocates, I think mainly American, started to espouse R2P and expanded the concept and application. My objection to R2P was the apparent thinking the USA and maybe a few others had this responsibility.

Was there not a thread on the theme? On a quick search one thread in 2008 about a lecture in Canada and two SWJ items.

MikeF
01-06-2012, 11:42 AM
David,

Keep this thread open. Given the strategy decision yesterday, this is the coming policy debate.

LawVol
01-06-2012, 12:44 PM
I'm not up on the full history of the concept, but do recall some sort of UN endorsement back in 2005 or so. I believe many advocate tend to tie it with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It began, I think, as sanctioning of multi-lateral action to protect against genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. All of that seems fine until you peal back the onion.

By use of the word "responsibility" a requirement is implied. Responsibility equates to an affirmative act. In other words, when one is responsible for something, one must affirmatively act in furtherance of that responsibility. But who, on the international stage, has the capability to act? Often that would be the US as we possess the ability to project and maintain power globally. So is this simply a doctrine advocating a requirement for the US to act in furtherance of human rights interests that, while noble, may not comport with national interest, particularly in a budget tightened post-GWOT environment? It would seem so. Change "responsibility" to "right," and thereby empower rather than require nation-states to act and maybe we come closer to the mark. However, other problems arise.

The inability of the US to afford such a strategy/doctrine/whatever, is not really the main issue. The crux of this issue is the breakdown of notions of post-Westphalian sovereignty. Sovereignty is the heart of the UN Charter, right alongside the prohibition of the use of force as a staple of international relations. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine weakens both of these concepts. To be sure, the concept may indeed have noble underpinnings but its advocates have failed to look at its unintended consequences. Might the doctrine be used as a cover for otherwise illegal use of force under international law? Sure.

As an example, assume the illegality of the Iraq invasion (trying to avoid a political discussion outside the main topic here). Rather than argue WMD, the US, under R2P, could simply have pointed to Saddam's genocidal activity against the Kurds and/or the Shiites. Had this been the main argument in a world that accepts R2P, the invasion would have had international sanction. Its all in how something is presented I guess.

Another issue, related to the erosion of UN Charter principles, is the Libya operation. Many pointed to R2P as justification. The Charter only allows the UNSC to sanction use of force when a breach to international peace and security occurs. At the time the UNSC authorized the use of force in Libya, the threat to peace was strictly internal to Libya. Even the refugee situation had not yet risen to a substantial problem. However, even if it had, I would hardly think refugees to qualify as an international breach of peace and security given that its has occurred, and is occurring, in many places without UNSC action.

Lastly, look at Syria. Certainly, the possibility of an international breach of peace and security is much higher there than in Libya when the UNSC took action yet no action has been taken. Why? How can R2P be advocated when it cannot or will not be evenly applied? Also, where does one draw the line? What ends may be sought in an R2P intervention? Should it only encompass the crimes against humanity type issues or lesser issues as well? The Libya operation would seem to indicate something less. If this be the case, then can China be subject to R2P due to its human rights violations? Could Russia? And what of internationalists that argue American human rights violations due to the death penalty, vestiges of racism, etc.? Of course, these three nation-states will not be subject to R2P due to their massive militaries. So then does R2P become merely another post-colonial tool for the developed world to play cop for the undeveloped world?

Fascinating topic because there is much more than meets the eye here. I look forward to reading the thoughts of others.

MikeF
01-06-2012, 01:04 PM
All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves. Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

LawVol
01-06-2012, 01:08 PM
All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves. Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

In a word: no. I agree with what is implied in your comment. Change must be desired, otherwise the weak merely accommodate until they can fight back or the one seeking change gets bored and leaves. I've never really believed the US has benevolently sought to help others. We, like all nations, act in our own interests (or at least think we do). The desire to help others is merely window dressing for the masses. :wry:

MikeF
01-06-2012, 01:10 PM
That was my inner Edgar Allen Poe talking. Now, I'll switch to whom Ken calls Waldo:eek: (Emerson).

The only way a man, village, or state can change, transform, or transcend is through self-reliance.

davidbfpo
01-06-2012, 01:10 PM
MikeF,

Perhaps your question:
Can we really force others to change their ways and transform societies?

This may need to be changed? I assume your use of 'we' refers to the USA, perhaps with a few other friends.

It looks very different, especially if you ask Americans and others, when it reads Can others force us to change our ways and transform societies? Somehow I expect those who use R2P rarely consider it being applied to them.

MikeF
01-06-2012, 01:13 PM
MikeF,

Perhaps your question:

This may need to be changed? I assume your use of 'we' refers to the USA, perhaps with a few other friends.

It looks very different, especially if you ask Americans and others, when it reads Can others force us to change our ways and transform societies? Somehow I expect those who use R2P rarely consider it being applied to them.

Under R2P and the UN, WE could be anyone.

ganulv
01-06-2012, 01:16 PM
Mahmood Mamdani’s book Saviors and survivors (http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/2009/04/09/saviors-and-survivors-by-mahmood-mamdani/) deals provocatively but well IMHO with the topic(s) under discussion in this thread.


If the rights of the citizen are pointedly political, the rights of the human pertain to sheer survival; they are summed up in one word: protection. The new language refers to its subjects not as bearers of rights—and thus active agents in their own emancipation—but as passive beneficiaries of an external ‘responsibility to protect.’ (pp. 274–75)

MikeF
01-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Mahmood Mamdani’s book Saviors and survivors (http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/2009/04/09/saviors-and-survivors-by-mahmood-mamdani/) deals provocatively but well IMHO with the topic(s) under discussion in this thread.

Now, throw in a bit of Machiavelli about how "We" deal with "those" who would do others harm and you have sound policy that doesn't have to bankrupt anyone.

MikeF
01-06-2012, 02:17 PM
"You ask me about what is called imperialism. Well, I have formed views about that question. I am at the disadvantage of not knowing whether our people are for or against spreading themselves over the face of the globe. I should be sorry if they are, for I don't think that it is wise or a necessary development. As to China, I quite approve of our Government's action in getting free of that complication. They are withdrawing, I understand, having done what they wanted. That is quite right. We have no more business in China than in any other country that is not ours. There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

Autobiography of Mark Twain (http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Mark-Twain-Vol-1/dp/0520267192)

jmm99
01-06-2012, 07:07 PM
As LawVol correctly points out, the modern genesis of R2P at the UN level is found in 2005's World Summit Outcome Document, Paragraphs 138-139 (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398):


Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

This statement is notable for placing the obligation on each individual state to prevent the various "badnesses"; and then affirming Chapter VII "Peace Enforcement" powers in the UN if a state fails that obligation. While the statement does not explicitly cover Violent Non-State Actors (acting in a failed state, for example), the failure of the failed state to prevent their "war crimes" would be adequate grounds for the UN to act within the terms of the statement.

The R2P arena is marked by Politik (politics and policy); and cannot be validly claimed (in my opinion, obviously) as an area governed by a determinative international law. That came home to me in connection with our (USAian) Libyan venture based on the UN Resolution and Presidential "Non-War Powers". While a number of voices shouted non-compliance with the War Powers Resolution and outright unconstitutionality, the salient fact was that Congress took no action opposing the President's actions. Thus, the President did not act illegally (since Congress did not act at all). That was an object lesson (some might say abject lesson) in what the Supreme Court has called "political questions" - and therefore, outside of the legal realm.

Part 2 will cover the 2001 "Canadian" Report, which is the intellectual basis for the R2P concept. Part 3 will covern some of the international organizations which are involved in the lobbying effort for R2P.

.... end part 1

jmm99
01-06-2012, 07:17 PM
2001's The Responsibility to Protect (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf) (Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), provides the policy and political meat behind the 2005 UN statement:


This report is about the so-called “right of humanitarian intervention”: the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive – and in particular military – action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state. ....

The Policy Challenge

External military intervention for human protection purposes has been controversial both when it has happened – as in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo – and when it has failed to happen, as in Rwanda. For some the new activism has been a long overdue internationalization of the human conscience; for others it has been an alarming breach of an international state order dependent on the sovereignty of states and the inviolability of their territory. For some, again, the only real issue is ensuring that coercive interventions are effective; for others, questions about legality, process and the possible misuse of precedent loom much larger.
...
At the United Nations General Assembly in 1999, and again in 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan made compelling pleas to the international community to try to find, once and for all, a new consensus on how to approach these issues, to “forge unity” around the basic questions of principle and process involved. He posed the central question starkly and directly:


…if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?

It was in response to this challenge that the Government of Canada, together with a group of major foundations, announced at the General Assembly in September 2000 the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Our Commission was asked to wrestle with the whole range of questions – legal, moral, operational and political – rolled up in this debate, to consult with the widest possible range of opinion around the world, and to bring back a report that would help the Secretary-General and everyone else find some new common ground.

So, blame the Canucks ! ;)

The general policy principles are:


The Responsibility to Protect: Core Principles

(1) Basic Principles

A. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself.

B. 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.

(2) Foundations

The foundations of the responsibility to protect, as a guiding principle for the international community of states, lie in:

A. obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty;

B. the responsibility of the Security Council, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security;

C. specific legal obligations under human rights and human protection declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law;

D. the developing practice of states, regional organizations and the Security Council itself.

(3) Elements

The responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities:

A. The responsibility to prevent: to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk.

B. The responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution, and in extreme cases military intervention.

C. The responsibility to rebuild: to provide, particularly after a military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert.

(4) Priorities

A. Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect: prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it.

B. The exercise of the responsibility to both prevent and react should always involve less intrusive and coercive measures being considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied.

So much for the standard "last resort" lead-in. Now, the military principles:


The Responsibility to Protect: Principles for Military Intervention

(1) The Just Cause Threshold

Military intervention for human protection purposes is an exceptional and extraordinary measure. To be warranted, there must be serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind:

A. large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or

B. large scale ‘ethnic cleansing’, actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.

(2) The Precautionary Principles

A. Right intention: The primary purpose of the intervention, whatever other motives intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. Right intention is better assured with multilateral operations, clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims concerned.

B. Last resort: Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.

C. Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective.

D. Reasonable prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction.

(3) Right Authority

A. There is no better or more appropriate body than the United Nations Security Council to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority, but to make the Security Council work better than it has.

B. Security Council authorization should in all cases be sought prior to any military intervention action being carried out. Those calling for an intervention should formally request such authorization, or have the Council raise the matter on its own initiative, or have the Secretary-General raise it under Article 99 of the UN Charter.

C. The Security Council should deal promptly with any request for authority to intervene where there are allegations of large scale loss of human life or ethnic cleansing. It should in this context seek adequate verification of facts or conditions on the ground that might support a military intervention.

D. The Permanent Five members of the Security Council should agree not to apply their veto power, in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes for which there is otherwise majority support.

E. If the Security Council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time, alternative options are:

I. consideration of the matter by the General Assembly in Emergency Special Session under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure; and

II. action within area of jurisdiction by regional or sub-regional organizations under Chapter VIII of the Charter, subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council.

F. The Security Council should take into account in all its deliberations that, if it fails to discharge its responsibility to protect in conscience-shocking situations crying out for action, concerned states may not rule out other means to meet the gravity and urgency of that situation – and that the stature and credibility of the United Nations may suffer thereby.

(4) Operational Principles

A. Clear objectives; clear and unambiguous mandate at all times; and resources to match.

B. Common military approach among involved partners; unity of command; clear and unequivocal communications and chain of command.

C. Acceptance of limitations, incrementalism and gradualism in the application of force, the objective being protection of a population, not defeat of a state.

D. Rules of engagement which fit the operational concept; are precise; reflect the principle of proportionality; and involve total adherence to international humanitarian law.

E. Acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal objective.

F. Maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organizations.

The remaining 90 pages set out the authors' justification for these principles.

... end part 2

jmm99
01-06-2012, 07:40 PM
R2P has its own mentor, the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/), c/o World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy, 708 Third Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017.

The World Federalist Movement & its Institute for Global Policy (http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/) are well known sponsers and lobbyists for a number of programs (I'm more familiar with their Coalition for the International Criminal Court (http://www.iccnow.org/)):


WFM-IGP Programs

Coalition for the International Criminal Court

International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect

International Democratic Governance

Global Governance Roundups

The focus is obviously on governance - internationalistic, rather than nationalistic.

The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect is a broad front organization (going beyond WFM-IGP), as one gathers from its Membership List (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-coalition/current-members); and its push for NGOs to join (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/join-the-coalition).

And, of course, R2P has its proponents in organizations that are not members of the ICR2P - e.g., USIP; as to which, this article fairly reflects that group's general approval of R2P principles, Libya and the “Responsibility to Protect” (http://www.usip.org/publications/libya-and-the-responsibility-protect?gclid=CICSkrj5u60CFWcBQAodLTjABw) (1 Mar 2011).

... end part 3

Regards

Mike

MikeF
01-06-2012, 07:48 PM
Can R2P become the thread that draws us into future conflict much like the treaties between various states brought on WWI with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria?

jmm99
01-06-2012, 10:15 PM
as I tried to point out in the titles of each of my three posts. What we have is a question of Politik (politics and policy in the CvC sense). Once, Politik makes up its mind, the law and the military will follow (as instruments of policy). No doubt that one could come up with factual situations where legal or military constraints limit Politik. However, in R2P, the legal and military constraints are not usually determinative - cuz, in both institutions, there are such a wide range of choices that are within the doctrinal frameworks material to "Peace Enforcement".

Now, to the real Politik issue you raise -


Can R2P become the thread that draws us into future conflict much like the treaties between various states brought on WWI with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria?

Of course, it can - cuz UN Chapter VII Peace Enforcement involves real armed conflict. The first UN Chapter VII PE action of any consequence was the Korean War. At several points, that armed conflict could have developed into a much wider conventional conflict (e.g., involving Taiwan, Japan and China), or even into a nuclear WWIII. The participants made policy choices that foreclosed those escalations, but they certainly were "legal" options.

Now, it may well happen that a UN member elects not to go along with Chapter VII PE based on R2P. E.g., Germany in the recent Libyan venture - and, of course, Russia and China, as further removed spectators. The UN Charter (and all the associated treaties, compacts and resolutions) are indeterminate enough to allow disassociation with what the rest of the pack decides to do. It does require a certain amount of national will to do that.

In fact, the various pre-WWI treaties allowed wiggle room for states to decline participation in the resulting bloodbath. So does Article 5 of NATO (http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm) contain the same wiggle room if you read it close ("... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force ..."):


If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

Given that kind of indeterminacy, I don't see law as especially "material" (that is, as carrying much real weight) in the R2P arena - although it seems "relevant" (that is, it must be of some probative worth because some lawyers are always asked to write a justification for whatever decision is made by their policy-making masters :eek:).

Hey Mike, good to be talking to you again. :)

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox
01-07-2012, 03:32 AM
Trying to set a "responsibility to protect" for ourselves, in the sense that this term is generally used--that is, basic world police stuff--is dumb in the extreme, less in terms of the actual actions that fall under this umbrella than in the overall context. Responsibility To Protect? How about, first, a Responsibility To Not Hork Things Up Completely Because We See An Immediate Benefit And Don't Give Much Though To The Long Term. How about acting on our principles more often, so that we're not faced with a choice between supporting a genuine democratic movement and supporting the dictatorship which we set up that they're revolting against!

I recognize it's not always that simple ("never" is, after all, a set of "not always"). But we can try a lot harder to do no harm before we set about trying to actively right perceived wrongs.

LawVol
01-07-2012, 07:31 AM
The R2P arena is marked by Politik (politics and policy); and cannot be validly claimed (in my opinion, obviously) as an area governed by a determinative international law. That came home to me in connection with our (USAian) Libyan venture based on the UN Resolution and Presidential "Non-War Powers". While a number of voices shouted non-compliance with the War Powers Resolution and outright unconstitutionality, the salient fact was that Congress took no action opposing the President's actions. Thus, the President did not act illegally (since Congress did not act at all).

Unlike many others, but apparently in agreement with you, I also did not focus upon the "Constitutional question." However, I did see an international law issue. The Charter gives the UNSC the authority to act in cases of breach of international peace. Thus, action to eject Iraq from Kuwait had the sanction of international law. Although the UNSC did indeed act with respect to Libya, there use of this same clause was without legal justification. International law requires that a breach of peace cross international borders. Since that did not occur with respect to Libya, the UNSC had no authority to act. The question here is whether R2P has now expanded that authority.

Part 2: in looking at the Canadian input on R2P I see something broader than that set forth in the UN material. The UN material specifically sets forth genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity as a precursor to action. However, the Canadian material is worded a little broader. It seems to indicate authority for preemptive or preventive action, which doesn't seem to be the case with the UN wording. I believe the Canadian stuff came first, so one could look at the UN material as curtailing the Canadian position. Even so, the two positions demonstrate the inherent problems with R2P. Again, the Libyan action would indicate a much more liberal interpretation of R2P.

Of course, I may still have fog on the brain as I just completed the US-Kuwait-Bagram transient process from R&R. :eek: However, I am seriously trying to understand this R2P issue and its potential effects. You have a better grasp of these issues than I so I look forward to your thoughts.

MikeF
01-07-2012, 07:39 AM
Mike- Great talking to you too.


Of course, I may still have fog on the brain as I just completed the US-Kuwait-Bagram transient process from R&R. :eek: However, I am seriously trying to understand this R2P issue and its potential effects. You have a better grasp of these issues than I so I look forward to your thoughts.

LawVol, run this thing out through your head and think about how a non-benevolent actor could manipulate the system of R2P particularly in a time of economic or regional crisis. The more I thought about it, the more this policy scared the crap out of me.

LawVol
01-07-2012, 07:53 AM
MikeF: you are absolutely correct. Although I didn't discuss it in detail in my initial post, this is what I was referring to when I spoke of R2P being a tool for the developed world. Particularly with regard to a broadened interpretation of R2P, as with the Canadian documents, I can easily foresee R2P as an excuse for action. Maybe a Russian-Georgian conflict part two based on perceived "crimes" against ethnic Russians in Georgia? I'm sure you can imagine other examples. While the moral underpinnings of the doctrine may seem worthwhile, the doctrine itself leave too much open to interpretation and misuse. Of course misuse is in the eye of the beholder, so criticism can be made of nearly any intervention I guess.

MikeF
01-07-2012, 08:22 AM
MikeF: you are absolutely correct. Although I didn't discuss it in detail in my initial post, this is what I was referring to when I spoke of R2P being a tool for the developed world. Particularly with regard to a broadened interpretation of R2P, as with the Canadian documents, I can easily foresee R2P as an excuse for action. Maybe a Russian-Georgian conflict part two based on perceived "crimes" against ethnic Russians in Georgia? I'm sure you can imagine other examples. While the moral underpinnings of the doctrine may seem worthwhile, the doctrine itself leave too much open to interpretation and misuse. Of course misuse is in the eye of the beholder, so criticism can be made of nearly any intervention I guess.

Well, the SWJ team here (JMM, Ken White, Steve Blair, and many others) have been helping me for the past four years really sorting through things, and I wanted to find reoccurring patterns throughout history that reflect today. Initially, I narrowed it down to 1866-1910, but I am now convinced that we are literally in a period that reflects the beginning of the twentieth century-small protracted wars of limited ends, contested global hegemony, economic shifts with the rise of the middle class and the Industrial Revolution, and the Rise of the West with an nascent American Empire blossoming. Theodore Roosevelt rose to the challenges of the day by building the Panama Canal and sailing the Great White Fleet.

As we (US, UK, and everyone else) move past Iraq and start to figure out how we're going to talk to each other, interact, trade, etc, in the future, we must understand what happened last time, but we cannot be bound by feelings of guilt either. We must move forward wisely.

This will take leadership.

When design theory was first introduced in the late 1960's, it came from systems thinking, and one rule that has since gone away, but has always stuck in my mind is

The planner has no right to be wrong.

MikeF
01-07-2012, 08:48 AM
From a mentor


Mike, the future is less likely to be what "we" want and more of what others demand. Neither of these solutions, which appear to be two ends of a continuum of US intervention policies, appear to be workable from my perspective. Policy is likely to be grounded in context and the worldwide context is very different. The US will most likely be pulling out of certain regions, developing coalitions in others, and pursuing some unilateral interventions (broadly defined to include MOOTW) in others. We also are in Age where grassroots movements worldwide are toppling oligarchy. What will replace them is uncertain, but it will be a very different world and very difficult to make unilateral policy. The US not longer has the ability to "control" what is going on although our we will continue to try to shape things. The defense establishment (and I am including politician-hawks) needs to understand the limits of military power; my guess is that they haven't learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they drag us into more combat into Muslim countries or with China, we are done for

MikeF
01-07-2012, 08:50 AM
From a Friend


1. I think Ms. Slaughter makes a good point of the rise in importance of SOF operations and more flexible options, however, I believe that she is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and is in fact making a key philosophical error in assuming that the nature of war has fundamentally changed. While the techniques and tactics certainly change and the frequency of large scale conflict may be far less than “small wars”, the idea that the world has moved beyond large scale conflict is both incorrect and has dangerous implications as we refashion the defense apparatus.

2. We (the royal, collective “we”) are often perpetrators of “Chronological Snobbery”, to use C.S. Lewis’ term, and somehow assume that the problems of today are unique and those before us were not as clever as we are nor did they have as good understanding of the topic (whatever it is) as we do now. While I am not arguing about technological issues (tanks are better than chariots), I would offer that the fundamental nature of war is a very human endeavor, has not changed much, and that the problems faced throughout histor, are essentially the same, albeit with different restrictions, enablers (constraints, restraints, etc.). e.g. How do we raise and pay for a military, defeat our adversaries, subdue a population, turn the win into a beneficial and sustainable endstate, etc. Until we change human nature, I do not think that this will change much.

3. Historically speaking, we are also off the mark as we look back at all the big wars that were never supposed to happen. But did.

4. So, while I believe that the military was far too force on force focused prior to 9/11, I also hesitate to advocate that we dispose of all of our tank and attack helicopters in light of a pure SOF force. In the end, I hope to see balance come the Force and that the nation ensures that it develops/maintains an array of options that can be used to achieve our ends in a flexible manner.

MikeF
01-07-2012, 10:43 AM
From another friend


South African Albie Sachs wrote a prize-winning book called The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter. In 1988, an assassin found him in Mozambique, where he was exiled from South Africa, and blew up his car. Sachs missed death but lost a leg and an eye. Upon return to South Africa, he met the man who ordered the bomb. The man offered to shake his hand. Sachs said no. “I will shake your hand after you go through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Sachs went on to become responsible for constitutional protection for equality of marriage in South Africa. Why did he refuse the hand of his would-be assassin? Because, in his words, "seeing a future, that has a process by which to arrive at it, is much more beautiful than ordinary punishment. It is to bet on a huge transformation of our country that will validate everything we went through."

Ken White
01-07-2012, 04:49 PM
The planner has no right to be wrong.He or she often will be... :wry:

jmm99
01-07-2012, 08:02 PM
LawVol:

With respect to the US, three branches are potentially involved in deciding constitutional and international law issues. With respect to decisions to go to war (jus ad bellum), the Supreme Court has made it clear that it won't get involved in second guessing those political questions, leaving them to Congress and the Executive. If the Executive acts and Congress does not act, the Executive's actions will stand (in practical effect, will be "legal"), regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them. UNLESS, and this may or may not be a big "unless", UNLESS the people then take action to cause the Executive to change course.

In the case of the UN, the SC is the Final Decider as to "peace", "international security" - and to Chapter VII actions. Given the concurrence of the permanent members and the acquiescence (or silence) of the General Assembly, the SC actions will be the "law", regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them.

While the velvet glove has been used by the UN versus the iron fist in Chapter VII matters, the latter is available under Arts. 48 & 49 to a greater extent than, say, under Art. 5 of NATO:


Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Of course, if you are a permanent member (or a functional equivalent, such as Germany), you have less to fear from Mr Hiss' well-drafted arrangement.

Like Zhivago, you might say to the UNSC: "That only gives you the Power, it doesn't give you the Right." But, I find that of little comfort.

Regards

Mike

MikeF
01-07-2012, 08:59 PM
He or she often will be... :wry:

Of course Ken, but good leaders bypass the minefield once they realize they've gone the wrong direction; they don't charge ahead to prove they were right. :eek:

carl
01-07-2012, 09:18 PM
All along throughout the Cold War it was but a dream and an illusion that we were protecting anyone other than ourselves.

I don't accept that at all. The reason for protecting others may, or may not, have been selfish ones, but the others got protected nevertheless.


Of course Ken, but good leaders bypass the minefield once they realize they've gone the wrong direction; they don't charge ahead to prove they were right.

That is a critical point. Our leadership classes characteristically will charge ahead and lie. They will never acknowledge a mistake.

Ken White
01-07-2012, 09:55 PM
...Our leadership classes characteristically will charge ahead and lie. They will never acknowledge a mistake.I hope I'm wrong. I am occasionally... :o

It has been my observation over the last 30 plus years that Planners -- who typically do not have to make quick, leader decisions are even more reluctant to admit mistakes -- or change their plan. In my experience the system that works best is to not have a Plans cell, but rather two Ops cells who rotate in planning and executing and will have the responsibility for executing the plan they designed -- tends to focus them admirably.

Ken White
01-07-2012, 10:07 PM
Of course Ken, but good leaders bypass the minefield once they realize they've gone the wrong direction; they don't charge ahead to prove they were right. :eek:Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...:rolleyes:

MikeF
01-07-2012, 10:10 PM
Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...:rolleyes:

Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?

carl
01-07-2012, 10:17 PM
In my experience the system that works best is to not have a Plans cell, but rather two Ops cells who rotate in planning and executing and will have the responsibility for executing the plan they designed -- tends to focus them admirably.

I like that. Simple, clever and cognizant of human nature.

Ken White
01-07-2012, 10:58 PM
Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?Probably about 50% ala Jack Singlaub but upper level managers (managers are civilian, right? Right?? :wry: ) are a small problem. Upper level uniformed leaders who are more concerned with protecting the institution are a far greater problem -- and the Congress is almost as significant a problem for several reasons we all know. Military excellence is not high on their priority list...

However, such focus on people in positions is not the real issue, the systemic malaise and dysfunction engendered by too many laws, too much well intentioned but pervasively stupid regulations and a focus on from over function; appearance over competence; and the enhancement of the institutions (plural) are the problems. The senior people are products of the system, they are doing to the best of their ability what the system says they should do (as is true of far too many less senior people but that's another story...). Cuts will be simply another Band Aid ® on a system that is very much in need of total redesign. You want better performance and results, you will have to change the system. Pretty radically, too...

That would entail Congress emphasizing competence instead of pseudo-fairness (and it is very pseudo...) and 'objectivity,' :rolleyes: . It would entail dumping the 1917 Personnel system (as amended in 1940, 1963, 1980, etc.); dumping the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard based BTMS system; removing grade creep (there are too many Officers, especially FlagOs, too many senior NCOs -- I'm fully aware of Mob requirements but there better ways to get there and improve quality in the process); testing people for promotion; rigorously testing units for performance and removing incompetent leaders from the service (acknowledging that Congress and HRC truly hate that idea for very different reasons...) and a few other things. You want it fixed, all that is necessary but any one item remediated would bring some improvement, two would help a lot. Good luck with any of it.

Lacking major surgery, the tumor will just continue to grow, a few slices here and there won't stop it. Make no mistake, the protectionism, CYA-ism / risk avoidance, political correctness and stifling bureaucracy are malignancies that have corrupted the system...

ganulv
01-08-2012, 01:50 AM
That would entail Congress emphasizing competence instead of pseudo-fairness (and it is very pseudo...) and 'objectivity,' :rolleyes: . It would entail dumping the 1917 Personnel system (as amended in 1940, 1963, 1980, etc.); dumping the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard based BTMS system; removing grade creep (there are too many Officers, especially FlagOs, too many senior NCOs -- I'm fully aware of Mob requirements but there better ways to get there and improve quality in the process); testing people for promotion; rigorously testing units for performance and removing incompetent leaders from the service (acknowledging that Congress and HRC truly hate that idea for very different reasons...) and a few other things. You want it fixed, all that is necessary but any one item remediated would bring some improvement, two would help a lot. Good luck with any of it.
Is there anywhere that a model other than up–or–out is used? If so, is it/are they any more effective than the U.S.’s?

Ken White
01-08-2012, 04:13 AM
Is there anywhere that a model other than up–or–out is used? If so, is it/are they any more effective than the U.S.’s?However, 15 plus years ago, we were the only nation using an announced and enforced up or out program. Thirty years ago we didn't have one and the personnel system worked a little better then than it did 15 years ago -- or today according to my sources... :rolleyes:

All organizations with any sort of heirarchy have, written or unwritten, a policy that is some variant of up or out. Most use failures in performance to determine who goes out. the US is exceptional in that reliefs for cause and summary dismissal for non performance are virtually frowned upon while consistent failure to conform is as or more important. The US process amounts to failure to get selected for promotion . Not all bad except for the fact that too many Promotion Boards tend to select based on a quota system and on the basis of the Official Photograph in the service record. Those factors are not ameliorated by the fact that much emphasis is placed on who rated the selection candidate. :eek:

All things considered, there is some good in an up or out program IMO -- the problems arise when the system goes into a zero tolerance mode for logical exceptions and / or uses specious criteria for identifying departees. That lack of flexibility is based mostly on the rationale that such exceptions create work for the personnel management squirrels. :mad:

A 'one size fits all' model is easy to administer but it does not really work for a large organization -- or nation...

That returns us to the thread. The R2P mantra is fallacious BS. It also is an attempt to dictate a standard response -- and that's impossible. We for example have that R2P for the Chines in those towns and cities. What are we doing to fulfill that 'responsibility?' What about Iran? Syria? Hungary today? Belarus? Venezuela? The Congo? Even Pakistan?

This ones for you, Bob -- or would be female drivers in Saudi Arabia?

There can be no R2P unless one wants to plunge the entire world into constant conflict...

jcustis
01-08-2012, 06:01 AM
Who has a responsibility to protect the people of this world?

I specifically posted my thoughts without reading any of what I'm sure are good responses. My very first thoughts were:

No one has the responsibility to protect the people of the world. They have the responsibility to protect themselves, inasmuch as they self-identify as a tribe, a sect, a state with recognized borders, etc.

You want protection? Form alliances and pacts with stronger or peer neighbors, as with NATO or the Arab League. Don't start sh*t you can't or don't want to finish, when somebody bigger comes around and doesn't like what you started. Get up off of your knees and defend yourself, even it requires every fiber of being and the last breath of every able-bodied man and woman.

The notion of protection is slippery, and has been used as the thin veil to cover outright aggression, genocide, and miscalculation on the part of countless nations that have started conflicts. It has also dragged countless states into conflict over issues that they felt were theirs to champion, and where they felt they were protecting something or someone from aggression.

Those were my first thoughts, but I realize that it would have to be a perfect world sort of situation, and I know the world doesn't turn that way as much as I'd like.

The more I thought about it (across, oh, say 30 minutes of watching Wheel of Fortune with my two youngest), I think the question needs to get turned on its head a bit. I think the premise of protecting people comes from some internal wiring that drives the thought that we can (or should at least strive to) achieve Utopia, where there are no haves and have-nots, and where there are no wars if everyone can just get along. That wiring also believes that we can influence other aggressive actors through action, deterrence, etc., and make the root causes of that aggression go away somehow.

Then I went back to the classic adage that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I remembered my realism theory roots. We will not achieve utopia and states and actors will always attempt to change the environment to improve their position relative to a competitor state. The same can apply to races, sects, etc., I believe.

Protecting people of the world only has true relevance when there is any bearing on our national interests. The rest is just grist for the mills of pundits, politicians, and fools.

The question that needs to be asked first is "why?" Only then can we ask "who?"

Is there a letter "T"? :D

MikeF
01-08-2012, 07:48 AM
I'm gonna post this video on the frontpage in a bit. I imagine Slapout will be up on the net later screaming, "See, see, this is what I've been trying to tell y'all all this time :p."

Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift (http://www.ted.com/talks/paddy_ashdown_the_global_power_shift.html#.TwiZT9l ZCnM.email)


Paddy Ashdown claims that we are living in a moment in history where power is changing in ways it never has before. In a spellbinding talk at TEDxBrussels he outlines the three major global shifts that he sees coming.

LawVol
01-08-2012, 08:36 AM
In the case of the UN, the SC is the Final Decider as to "peace", "international security" - and to Chapter VII actions. Given the concurrence of the permanent members and the acquiescence (or silence) of the General Assembly, the SC actions will be the "law", regardless of what you, I and the woman down the street think of them. . . .

Like Zhivago, you might say to the UNSC: "That only gives you the Power, it doesn't give you the Right." But, I find that of little comfort.


As you are aware international law comes in two varieties: treaties (and the like) and customary international law. Customary law is built upon state practice and evolves over time. Thus, a single act by a state is not enough to constitute customary law. There must be action and acquiescence over time. I think this applies to Inter-governmental bodies such as the UN as well. A one-off action like Libya, even with acquiescence from the General Assembly, can become "law." However, the UNSC can now use Libya as precedence to build upon the concept of R2P (or whatever their basis) which can them become customary law. Only objections can prevent this from occurring. While objections would certainly hold more water if they came from States, sometimes they must come from individuals academia or other organizations. Does this work? Not always, but R2P and the UN Declarations of Human Rights, among other concepts, were initiated by non-state entities.

I guess I am just not as quick to call UNSC action with regard to Libya "law." Of course,m it occurred and nothing will change that, but we must look to next time. So, yes, I do take some small comfort in the evolutionary nature of customary law.

Bob's World
01-08-2012, 11:48 AM
R2P is a slippery slope. Like "controlling WMD" "protecting the populace" sounds honorable and noble, and will be employed to slap an honorable and noble rationale onto all manner of adventures, regardless of the true purpose and intent.

Even when the purpose and intent are largely pure, it is by its very nature the worst possible abuse of the sovereignty of some other nation. The primary duty of government in their exercise of the sovereignty granted them by their populace (be that into one man or a vast conglomerate of democracy) is to "protect the populace."

R2P is the essence of sovereignty when exercised at home. R2P exercised abroad is the essence of overriding the sovereignty of another.

This is so fundamental that it must be placed in the proper context to really appreciate the magnitude of what we are saying.

Sometimes in the exercise of one's own sovereign duties a government gets so carried away that it becomes easier and easier to justify violations of the sovereignty of others in the pursuit of one's own. The US has come to cast too wide of a net over that past 60 years of what we see as our interests and our sovereign duty to protect. This drives a rationalization process as others seeking their own destinies outside of that US-shaped construct push back. What the US needs is not new rationale for violating the sovereignty of others in pursuit of our own, what the US needs is a new assessment of what our sovereign duties truly are. Controlling outcomes was nice, but not necessary. Influence is enough, and it comes at lower costs of almost every variety.

M-A Lagrange
01-08-2012, 02:18 PM
R2P is the essence of sovereignty when exercised at home. R2P exercised abroad is the essence of overriding the sovereignty of another.
R2P can be seen has the obligation of the States to protect their populations against any threat. What Bob calls sovereignty.
But R2p can be seen also as an extension of the regalia power/rights of the States vs their population and then is the basement for legitimacy. In other words, a State apparatus is legitimate when it uses its regalia power to protect the individuals and properties of the population that is under his grip. (Couldn't find a better word but my english is sometimes limited).

What we are witnessing those days is a back fire from the States who felt endangered by the extension of the R2P principle (they do not apply at home) to international relations; the fear from States that R2P would restrein their "independance" and sovereignty.
This is a concervative understanding of R2P which is based on the old principle that aState apparatus has all liberty to act on his soil. (Basically you can do what ever you want to your populations as long as you do not conduct operations out side of your borders).

R2P was used in Ivory Coast and Lybia to support regime change under the argument that government do not have the right to arm their populations (strict application of the R2P at national level extended to the international level on the obligation from others to ensure that a regime in place is applying R2P at national level).
Now, in Russia and DRC, we can witness the back fire of such an audatious move and interpretation of R2P from "progressist countries". We are back to the legitimacy problematic: who is legitimate? the institutions or the people?
R2P tries to impose the people as the source of legitimacy. In response, States are imposing the institutions as the first source of legitimacy, do government protect or not their populations. (Fraudulent elections not respecting the will of the people are nomore a good reason to ban a government)

Further than a legal practice, R2P is an attempt to introduce a real change in what are the basement of a State and in governing practices.
Will take time and the light at the end of the tunnel is far away. But there is still hope that one day, government first priority will be to ensure their population protection against any threat, political, socia;l, natural or man made.
But some say I'm a dreamer. :cool:

Bob's World
01-08-2012, 05:06 PM
But there is still hope that one day, government first priority will be to ensure their population protection against any threat, political, social;l, natural or man made.
But some say I'm a dreamer. :cool:

One's inability to perform their duties to standard only redefines their duties when their employer submits to accepting this substandard performance.

The people are the "employer" of government. Many populaces have submitted to accepting substandard performance from their employee because they felt they had no other good options. In the modern information age they are much more aware of others who either have more effective employees (governance) or have taken it upon themself to either improve or replace ineffective employees (governance).

The fundamental duty of sovereignty is indeed as M-A describes above. Increasingly government must step up to perform to standard or risk popular action to address their shortcomings (legally where legal means exist, or illegally where such sub-standard employees have written rules to pretext their ineptitude). Also increasingly it is unacceptable to violate the sovereignty of another in the pursuit of one's own interpretation of their own sovereignty. This is where this R2P concept falls apart. I don't know the government wise enough to apply it without doing at least as much harm as good.

jcustis
01-08-2012, 05:08 PM
Sometimes in the exercise of one's own sovereign duties a government gets so carried away that it becomes easier and easier to justify violations of the sovereignty of others in the pursuit of one's own. The US has come to cast too wide of a net over that past 60 years of what we see as our interests and our sovereign duty to protect. This drives a rationalization process as others seeking their own destinies outside of that US-shaped construct push back. What the US needs is not new rationale for violating the sovereignty of others in pursuit of our own, what the US needs is a new assessment of what our sovereign duties truly are.

And I think two examples of how this mindset could creep into policy and action come from none other than the mouthbreathing Governor of Texas, in the Sat debate, when he tried to put together a cogent sentence on the pending budget cuts and the issue of Iraq:


“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”

That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.


“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”

:eek::rolleyes::mad::wry:

Those where my thoughts when I listened to him say that.

M-A Lagrange
01-11-2012, 06:39 AM
One's inability to perform their duties to standard only redefines their duties when their employer submits to accepting this substandard performance.

The people are the "employer" of government. Many populaces have submitted to accepting substandard performance from their employee because they felt they had no other good options. In the modern information age they are much more aware of others who either have more effective employees (governance) or have taken it upon themself to either improve or replace ineffective employees (governance).

Bob,

I would like to introduce here the distinction between subjects and citizens.
In most democracies people are citizens: the employers of the government. They get the government and governance they deserve as it is them who choose. As they can influx on government composition, government is forced to protect them and apply R2P.

In most of the countries where State is failing to assume its protection duty, people are subject of the government. Unlike citizens, subjects have a very limited capacity to influx on government composition and governance.

Failure to implement R2P at national level is mainly taking its roots in such distinction of population status by the ruling persons but also by the population itseld. If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

MikeF
01-11-2012, 06:46 AM
R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

Salut Marc Andre,

I hope all is well. The problem is that most revolutions are violent, and when you force change quickly, i.e. free the subjects, what do you do then?

jmm99
01-11-2012, 03:39 PM
The distinction between "citizens" (with avenues of non-violent recourse for "bad governance") and "subjects" (who have no such avenues) is well-known enough. Also, your comment:


If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

is, for example, something that we old folks could have heard and read from (e.g.) Bill Corson re: the impossible position of the South Vietnamese peasant who was beset by the Government of South Vietnam (predatory and "bad") and the Communists ("worse").

In that type of situation, a foreign power (IF it can affect the outcome positively at all) has two bad choices - does it select the "lesser" of two evils; or does it simply walk away ?

The experience of the US in Cold War and post-Cold War "peace enforcement" and associated "nation building" has not been positive. Perhaps, it's time to withdraw from that role ?

Regards

Mike

M-A Lagrange
01-12-2012, 06:19 AM
Bonne annee Mike and Mike,



The distinction between "citizens" (with avenues of non-violent recourse for "bad governance") and "subjects" (who have no such avenues) is well-known enough.
Hopefully we do not have to reinvent the wheel every day and at each generation. ;)


The problem is that most revolutions are violent, and when you force change quickly, i.e. free the subjects, what do you do then?

The experience of the US in Cold War and post-Cold War "peace enforcement" and associated "nation building" has not been positive. Perhaps, it's time to withdraw from that role ?

May be there are lessons to learn before throwing the baby with the water of the bath.
The real problematic with state building and the R2P as source of legitimacy is may be in te assumption that people can just jump from subjects to citizen in a snap. West tries to build institutions that are fully functional when people are citizen. And when it does not function, there is the big temptation to go back to enlightened dictatorship on the basic that people are not ready.
What we probably do not fully embrase is why ruling class is such context is always trying to deconstruct gorvernance tools and state apparatus we build for them and refuse to apply R2P.
My personnal opinion would rather go in a flawed evaluation of the ruling class (government, rebels, insurgents...) to actually implement this change from subject to citizen than in a rejectof the R2P principles.

If we look at the great global picture, in fact, result is not that bad. Yes there is, now, back fire from States/institutions against the people (Syria and Russia are good exemples) but this does not mean that the arab spring did not happen and that its offshoots will not blow one day.
The fact that on the fringes of this world, some are finghting against the establishment of democratic institutions and the principle of R2P can be seen as a good sign: we heading in the right direction. This does not mean the road will be easy and the journey without traps.

We have to understand why deconstructing the State and bad governance are so appealing for the new rulers once they are in power.

MikeF
01-12-2012, 09:11 AM
We have to understand why deconstructing the State and bad governance are so appealing for the new rulers once they are in power.

Merci Marc. Meet Nancy Roberts, one of the smartest people that I know, and one of my personal mentors. She was brought in by the UN (1998?) to try and facilitate the International Community to work with the Taliban at the end of the civil war. She wrote this paper in 2000.

WICKED PROBLEMS AND NETWORK APPROACHES TO RESOLUTION
by Nancy Roberts

Collaboration for Relief and Recovery in Afghanistan

http://www.idt.unisg.ch/org/idt/ipmr.nsf/0/1f3bcad88f16e7c6c1256c76004be2c4/$FILE/IPMR_1_1_WICKED.pdf

International Public Management Review · electronic Journal at http://www.ipmr.net
Volume 1 · Issue 1 · 2000 · © International Public Management Network

Bob's World
01-12-2012, 04:48 PM
Bob,

I would like to introduce here the distinction between subjects and citizens.
In most democracies people are citizens: the employers of the government. They get the government and governance they deserve as it is them who choose. As they can influx on government composition, government is forced to protect them and apply R2P.

In most of the countries where State is failing to assume its protection duty, people are subject of the government. Unlike citizens, subjects have a very limited capacity to influx on government composition and governance.

Failure to implement R2P at national level is mainly taking its roots in such distinction of population status by the ruling persons but also by the population itseld. If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.

R2P effort at international level is all about changing such dynamic.

Whether one is a "subject" or a "citizen" the ultimate power and the ultimate source of authority always rests within the populace rather than in the government. Governments who forget this find themselves on the business end of any manner of populace delivered "weapons" systems (ballots where ballots count, or bullets where only bullets count).

The duty of every government is the same regardless of system of government in place, though granted, many do not recognize this duty and would scoff at the idea. They whistle past the cemetary when they do so. There is a day of rekoning coming on the back of information technology that is, or will be, a rude shock to many governments. Better to undergo planned, orderly evolution now, but many will wait until forced to act through some form of revolution.

jmm99
01-12-2012, 06:45 PM
without belaboring what I've already written in many posts.

1. The US has proved during my lifetime (1942-?) that, with the exception of three military occupation "successes" (Italy, Germany and Japan; where pre-war governmental structures had been well established), it is not ready for primetime in the "nation building" (aka "state building") arena. We (USAians) are better at breaking things.

2. The R2P concept has theoretical validity - is not the prime function of a "good government" (and of its security agencies) to "protect and serve" ? But, the terms that come to mind (e.g., "justice", "democracy", "governance"; just to name three of the many terms that can be used) have different meanings in State A and State B. They may, in fact, have different meanings in different parts of State A (e.g., urban vs rural viewpoints in 1955-1975 SVN).

3. Therefore, a foreign state is at a disadvantage in taking on the indigenous government's R2P role. Experience suggests to me that multiplying the number of foreign states involved does not minimize the disadvantage - and may do more harm than good in the long run.

Like "COIN", "governance" (as seen by me) is an indigenous project. Note that both of these must involve the "political struggle" - which by its very nature must be indigenous.

Regards

Mike

LawVol
01-13-2012, 12:55 PM
Mike is spot on with his three points above. The contrast between theoretical viability of R2P and differing meanings is exactly why I cannot support it. It is much to easy for R2P to be perverted and abused.

Some comments have pointed to R2P as emanating from a State's responsibility to protect its own citizens. This, indeed, is the genesis of the theory. However, R2P expands that responsibility to the international community when a State is either unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligation. Thus, when the government of Libya, Syria, or Rwanda (pick a country) acquiesces in the breakdown in security for its population, the international community becomes burdened with that responsibility and should act to alleviate the suffering. From a moral standpoint, most would agree that the concept here is supportable. However, the tendency will always be to exceed that mandate.

In satisfying this new responsibility (new because the "social contract theory" is between a people to establish a government for their own protection; nothing is said about protection of outsiders to the contract), a State will invariably seek regime change. While this may certainly be required under the circumstances, the substitute regime will habitually be made in the same mold as the country conducting the R2P intervention, whether culture dictates it or not. Thus, the intervention morphs into a bellicose chauvinism wherein the populous of the country in which the R2P operation is conducted are "conquered into liberty" (see book of same title by Eliot A. Cohen) whether they desire our version of liberty or not. This brings about the nation-building that Mike correctly points out we are not particularly good at doing.

While there may certainly be instances in which regime change and nation-building are within our national interest (although I know of none currently), not every situation requires COIN-style rebuilding on our part. The realist in me believes we should do only that which serves our interests. R2P imposes burdens that may or may not do that, so we must resist it.

M-A Lagrange
01-15-2012, 08:11 AM
In satisfying this new responsibility (new because the "social contract theory" is between a people to establish a government for their own protection; nothing is said about protection of outsiders to the contract), a State will invariably seek regime change. While this may certainly be required under the circumstances, the substitute regime will habitually be made in the same mold as the country conducting the R2P intervention, whether culture dictates it or not. Thus, the intervention morphs into a bellicose chauvinism wherein the populous of the country in which the R2P operation is conducted are "conquered into liberty" (see book of same title by Eliot A. Cohen) whether they desire our version of liberty or not. This brings about the nation-building that Mike correctly points out we are not particularly good at doing.

I might be wrong but the social contract theory is just about the agreement of power sharing between the rulers and the one who are ruled. THere is nothing there about protecting the people.
By extension this can be interpreted as the contract between the people on how they protect themselves but it is basically only focussed on the legitimacy of the use of violence. (Cf Webber). The excellent book rebel rulers (Zachariah Cherian Mampilly, Cornell University Press) shows very well how insurgents government success or fail to go further than this.

R2P comes with the idea of the Just War: the just use of violence by a government. And, its roots can be found deep in history as the roots of most of the regimes. There are, in fact, very few regime (DRC, North Corea and few others) which openly say: we are here to enjoy power and not protect you. Even the initial social contract of feodality is based on the principle of sharing the responsability to protect (I, noble, protect you and you, peasant, feed me). The R2P is just the formalisation of the moral roots of that contract which has been biased into the only legitimate user of violence are the formal State institutions.

The question, at international level, is not do we have to impose R2P to others but rather: government based on R2P (and respecting and implementing it) are the sole form of acceptable government in this world. As we see the world as a global village, there is a need (and not a responsability) for all to have only neigbours that respect R2P to ensure that all mankind lives in a friendly and respectfull environment. This is a need for all as it participates in building a peacefull global environment which improves each and every country home security. Nothing much altruist in that. (If my neigbours are all nice and friendly, then my personnalsecurity is improved).
Somehow, rejection of R2P makes me think of the rejection of democracy by the European Kingdomes in the 18th century when USA and France made their revolutions.


While there may certainly be instances in which regime change and nation-building are within our national interest (although I know of none currently), not every situation requires COIN-style rebuilding on our part. The realist in me believes we should do only that which serves our interests. R2P imposes burdens that may or may not do that, so we must resist it.


Like "COIN", "governance" (as seen by me) is an indigenous project. Note that both of these must involve the "political struggle" - which by its very nature must be indigenous.

I agree with those both statements as Regime change and Nation building are just tools to achieve the establishment of a government based on R2P. Their use is limited to the formal form of the State not the moral contract that supports and roots the institutions.

Such change, as Mike rightfully spoted it, is indigeneous and can be only indigeneous. Saying that, it does not mean that others do not have a need/interrest in promoting the emergence of such government in its neighbours by making a clear choice among the forces of those indigeneous political struggles.

And it is true that none on this earth is really good at using violence to build.:D

MikeF
01-15-2012, 09:20 AM
The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/the-last-utopia-human-rights-in-history/#more-4948)
by Samuel Moyn
Lawfare



Only after the end of the Cold War in 1990 did the human rights movement affirmatively embrace internationalism as the preferred vehicle for its own utopian vision, alongside an ever more expansive and progressive substantive human rights corpus as international law, including all manner of group, social, and economic rights. International law of human rights joins with international organizations gradually to overtake the nation-state as the source of legitimate authority, at least over questions of rights – which is to say, more or less, over everything. The extent to which the institutions of internationalism—created with the consent and power of national governments but often rooted in intellectual and historical underpinnings vastly different from those of the human rights movement—will actually serve as witting champions for the human rights movement is, however, much less certain.

M-A Lagrange
01-19-2012, 12:16 PM
But what else could you expect from UNSG


“I am also acutely aware of the need to preserve my own diplomatic space for the crucial moment when the UN’s good offices may be needed.
“Such is the nature of the Responsibility to Protect. It can be a minefield of nuance, political calculation and competing national interests. The result too often is hesitation or inaction. This we can not afford.”
He said that, in a short period of time, the world has embraced the Responsibility to Protect – not because it is easy, but because it is right.
“We therefore have a moral responsibility to push ahead,” he stated. “Together, let us work... with optimism and determination... to make the Responsibility to Protect a living reality for the peoples of the world.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40972&Cr=responsibility+to+protect&Cr1

SWJ Blog
02-04-2012, 11:58 PM
Syria and R2P (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/syria-and-r2p)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/syria-and-r2p) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
02-07-2012, 05:50 PM
R2P, COIN, and John Nagl (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/r2p-coin-and-john-nagl)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/r2p-coin-and-john-nagl) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
07-24-2013, 02:50 AM
U.S. Urged to Adopt Policy Justifying Intervention (R2P) (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-urged-to-adopt-policy-justifying-intervention-r2p)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-urged-to-adopt-policy-justifying-intervention-r2p) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Bill Moore
01-22-2014, 09:09 AM
Fascinating and worrisome article, the self-righteous would love to full control of the military.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/1/hawks-for-humanity.html


The human rights industry does a lot of noble work around the world. And yet many of the field’s most prominent figures and institutions have lately taken to vocally endorsing acts of war. Where does this impulse come from? On what grounds is it justified? And how’s the hawkish stance working out, given a decade of strategic and humanitarian debacles for Washington and its allies?


Liberal hawks respond to skepticism over their bellicosity with an invented pedigree of successful humanitarian wars, wheeling out India’s armed intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, which halted a genocide and created Bangladesh, or Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978, which ended the Khmer Rouge, or Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda in 1979, which brought down Idi Amin. What they fail to mention is that these wars weren’t simple humanitarian interventions but attacks motivated almost entirely by national self-interest, conducted to stem massive, destabilizing influxes of foreign refugees from a bordering nation.

Author ends with this:


The itchy trigger finger of the human rights industry is symptomatic of the atrophy of diplomacy and dealmaking in favor of the militarization of statecraft.

davidbfpo
02-20-2014, 11:23 PM
I have merged two main threads and five SWJ Blog threads into this R2P thread following the catalyst of an academic discussion yesterday.

As CAR and Syria show today R2P has not gone away as an issue, although I fear many within and outside government would prefer it did.

davidbfpo
06-18-2014, 01:46 PM
In a very direct 'rejoinder' Patrick Porter, a UK-based Australian academic, responds to Ann-Marie Slaughter's recent NYT column. He starts with:
Anne-Marie Slaughter argues (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/opinion/dont-fight-in-iraq-and-ignore-syria.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0) that America should enter the fighting in Syria and Iraq. In doing so, she argues that there is little distinction between strategic interests and humanitarian impulses. I’m personally, fearfully, sympathetic towards some assistance to the Iraq state in denying ISIS control of whole cities. But Slaughter’s cosmology is truly startling.
In an article that begins in self-pity, and ends in glib counter-factuals, she makes it all sound so simple.

Link:http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/a-rejoinder-to-anne-marie-slaughter/

SWJ Blog
08-29-2014, 06:12 PM
The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) in Iraq Shouldn’t Just Be About Military Intervention (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-%E2%80%9Cresponsibility-to-protect%E2%80%9D-r2p-in-iraq-shouldn%E2%80%99t-just-be-about-military-intervention)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-%E2%80%9Cresponsibility-to-protect%E2%80%9D-r2p-in-iraq-shouldn%E2%80%99t-just-be-about-military-intervention) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
01-30-2017, 12:46 PM
There is a separate, closed thread that may be relevant to R2P: Mass Atrocity Response Operations (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=10318)

davidbfpo
01-30-2017, 01:09 PM
Very curious timing for this report by Policy Exchange, often seen as a "neo-con" think tank in London and they explain:
In a report for Policy Exchange, Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South and Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling, say that “the rise of knee jerk isolationism, unthinking pacifism and anti-interventionism in Britain have dangerous implications for national security and the safety of civilians around the world”.Going onto to add for the UK:
The report examines the history of British intervention – militarily and from a humanitarian perspective – arguing that it has been an irreducible part of British foreign and national security policy for over two hundred years. It says that while the recent lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan must be learned, a retreat from playing a proactive role in world affairs heightens the risk of further global instability.Link:https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-cost-of-doing-nothing-the-price-of-inaction-in-the-face-of-mass-atrocities/

This could have been added to the atrocity thread, but it sits here too.