Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All
This is being sponsored by my department and I have been asked to distribute it. It's at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada
Quote:
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
Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
Entry Excerpt:
Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
by Charli Carpenter
Download the Full Article: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect
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
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 and Lawyers, Guns and Money.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Responsibility to Protect?
Who has a responsibility to protect the people of this world?
Responsibility to Protect
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.
Responsibility = Requirement
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.
Another way to look at it
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?
Human rights, citizens’ rights.
Mahmood Mamdani’s book Saviors and survivors deals provocatively but well IMHO with the topic(s) under discussion in this thread.
Quote:
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)
Mark Twain on Imperialism
Quote:
"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
First off, Mike, it's not a legal question ...
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 -
Quote:
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 contain the same wiggle room if you read it close ("... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force ..."):
Quote:
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
Do I understand you correctly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
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.
True. However the paradox is
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
The planner has no right to be wrong.
He or she often will be... :wry:
Who is the Final Decider ?
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:
Quote:
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
That, sadly is also my impression of too many today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
...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.
At the risk of moving this thread too far down the off topic road…
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
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?
Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift
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
Quote:
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.
the R2P or the States VS the people
Quote:
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: