Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[jmm99]

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 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 ).

Hey Mike, good to be talking to you again.

Regards

Mike