A couple of points:Originally Posted by JMA
First, the existence of a people's right to self-determination does not entail a correlative duty on others to ensure those people are able to exercise that right. In fact, on some definitions of a right, one only has rights insofar as they are able to exercise them without the help of others.
Second, I replaced Georgia from JMA's post with people--Georgia as a nation is not a people--it is a collection of different peoples. The nation of Georgia may have a right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty, but again, having that right does not entail that other nations have a duty to protect the exercise of that right. The correlative duty only exists when other nations have made pledges/promises to defend infringements of the right. The NATO treaty is an example of such a pledge or promise, but it extends only to the treaty's signatories/member nations.
The "responsibility to protect" (R2P) justification that the US and Russia have both used recently is not universally binding, either morally legally. Acting on this responsibility is only permissive, not required. On both the Syria thread and this thread, some have claimed that the US has failed in its duty/responsibility to protect. Why is it only the US that must act on this responsibility? Is this a 21st Century version of the 19th Century "White Man's Burden" argument (which by the way was used to override the very right of self-determination now being touted)? If R2P is a required action, why are not Austria, the Republic of South Africa and every other nation in the world not also required to ante up? Why are these other nations not equally derelict in their responsibilities to the rest of the world's people? Absent a prior promise to help, which in the US means a treaty ratified by the Congress, R2P is just a bunch of feel good mumbo jumbo.
Bookmarks