The Responsibility To Protect (R2P) Concept: Ethics and Moral Values Introduction Essay

Introduction

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept can be defined as a revolutionary program in its attempt to introduce ethics and moral values in the international arena. The paradigm intends to call for the principal issues of the world order, including violent conflicts, human rights, and sovereignty. As Evans states, the world witnesses the emergence of “a new international norm, one that may ultimately become a new rule of customary international law with really quite fundamental ethical importance and novelty in the international system.” (Evans, 2006:704)

The introduction of the R2P to international politics creates new moral and ethical values for states to follow rather than an alternative perception of international politics tackling national interests (Cooper and Kohler, 2009). According to the ICCS report, the compelling normative claim that all individuals have inalienable human rights has spread far and wide after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and “the ideas embodied in the declaration have become the weapons that the powerless have mobilized against the powerful.” (International Development Research Center, 200:134).

While interpreting this phrase, the R2P is perceived equivocally, particularly by those developing countries who consider this program as a threat to national sovereignty.

The concept is based on several responsibilities and principles. Apart from protecting states from crimes against humanity and war crimes the International Community is also responsible for assisting the state in protecting its citizens in case it is unable to do it (Saxer, 2008:2). In addition, the Responsibility to Protect concept allows the International forces to intervene in a state, in case it explicitly demonstrates its reluctance to protect citizens from mass atrocities (Ibid:3).

Judging upon the above, the R2P concept argues for the necessity to establish a political agreement between nation-states who are obliged, either diplomatically or coercively, to secure their citizens from crimes against humanity and genocide. However, this paradigm has certain cornerstones and adversities which are not easy to overcome. In particular, the concept aims to reconcile two contradicting concepts of international law: human rights and sovereignty. The conflicting situation may arise when the state demands immunity from intervention premised on long-termed principles of national sovereignty (Evans, 2006).

In this paper, I will consider the scope and essence of the Responsibility to Protect. More importantly, we will argue that the Responsibility to Protect paradigm should not be regarded as a threat to national sovereignty, but rather as a right to interfere with state affairs in case the state is unwilling to protect its citizens from serious human rights breaches.

We will articulate the arguments presented by Saxer (2008) who has displayed his position towards the implementation of the R2P. In particular, Saxer (ibid) assumes that R2P can successfully address the problem of mass atrocities and violent conflict within developing countries. While considering the problem of genocide prevention, we will refer to Bleeker’s (2008) suggestions for protecting people from atrocities.

Before proceeding to the core thesis of the paper, aside from the benefits that R2P can provide, it is first necessary to discuss the obstacles which can be encountered regarding its implementation which are argued by Bleeker (2008), Bellamy (2008), and Pattison (2010) who provide a sophisticated analysis of the concept, including its merits and shortcomings.

We will in particular consider the issue of national sovereignty and how it refers to the R2P doctrine. We should also address the works presented by Chandler (2004), who discusses the phenomenon of neocolonialism, Thakur (2002) and Evans (2008) who are more focused on the issues of humanitarian intervention, and Bellamy (2008) who touches upon the definition of sovereignty in more detail. For a deeper consideration of solutions to the problem of national sovereignty, we will address the ideas put forward by Totten (2007) and Saxer (2008). In conclusion, we will explain the argument presented in the body of the paper and introduce possible solutions to the existing adversities for the implementation of R2P.

Genocide Prevention/Crimes against Humanity Prevention

The Responsibility to Protect was accepted by the 2005 UN World Summit that recognized the necessity of establishing an alternative approach to the battle against human rights violations. The decision made at the World Summit is a new step to a reformed world community where ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities are inadmissible. The guiding program provides evidence for a political agreement between nation-states aimed at protecting their citizens from genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Genocide has been considered the most serious crime against humanity. However, there is a tangible delay in stopping genocide as a crime against humanity despite its regular recurrence throughout human history. The point is that the international organizations and the states witnessing genocide did not manage to work out effective strategies for preventing this crime. This is why there are many burning issues to discuss and to solve, and, at this point, it is possible to witness that the previous measures taken by the international organizations and the UN, in particular, were not quite effective (Bleeker, 2008:9).

Several policies have been put across to reduce crimes against humanity. The establishment of an international court, for example, although very useful, cannot be regarded as a preventive method because it only prosecutes criminals after they committed crimes against humanity. In this respect, Cassese (1986) states that an international court would rather be seen as “as a way of controlling war” (p. 323). Therefore, this court could be used to accuse criminals or terrorists of holding a genocide policy only after the tragic events took place. (Bellamy, 2009).

To prevent genocide, a state needs to put much of its attention to how it could be recognized beforehand. It should pass laws to control the crime and establish severe punishments for those people found committing such crime.

Several studies and researches have been carried out, in particular, Bleeker (2008) has acknowledged that, though a lot of laws on genocide prevention were adopted, including the ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the outcomes of these programs were still not effective (Ibid:11).

As Saxer argues, one of the main problems for the implementation of the R2P lies in improper people’s education on the core principles of human rights (Saxer, 2008). This involves different levels of influence, including cultural, political, and social. Therefore, one has to imply a more accurate paradigm assuring that people are protected and aware of the infringement of their rights (Evans, 2006).

As it can be drawn from previous paragraphs, the R2P paradigm states that if the state fails to protect its citizens’ rights, the International community takes a responsibility to secure these rights will be established and to undertake humanitarian intervention (Pattison, 2010). However, the right to intervene is considered to be an extreme preventive measure. That is, its implementation has caused other substantial problems which will be further discussed.

Reasons of Why the Responsibility to Protect Concept Has Been Implemented and Ideated

Interest in the 1948 Genocide convention has increased considerably over the last ten years due to the rise of activities in the sphere of international criminal law (Schabas 2009:34). This convention was the answer applied to prevent atrocities in Rwanda. However, tragically the tools used at the time were demonstrated to be ineffective and not appropriate. Probably, the 1948 convention failure was predetermined by its outdated definitions. In particular, early 1945 saw two different notions – genocide and crimes against humanity – as terms describing violent acts of Nazi Germany. Nowadays the term ‘genocide’ has been corrected in the Rome Statute, article 7, where the term has no reference to an armed conflict (Schabas 2009:34). Such a change has created a clear distinction between the terms ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity (Ibid:45).

The necessity to implement the R2P program is primarily predetermined by a deplorable situation emerging in developing countries in Africa, particularly in Rwanda, and Darfur (Kuperman, 2009). Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, still argues the necessity to implement the paradigm to avoid “future Rwandas” (Bellamy, 2006).

The 2005 UN Summit hopes that the R2P program will help to prevent genocide either by using peaceful measures or using forced intervention in case the situation is too critical. (Bellamy, 2006:144).

According to Bellamy (2006), several factors are supporting the use of the R2P paradigm. To begin with, the consensus was reached due to a unanimous decision made by the African Union and the United Nations to accept this program. Secondly, there was considerable pressure on the part of the supporters of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. In particular, they insisted on the implementation of two strategies aimed at preventing future Kosovos. The first one was directed at defining the circumstances under which the international community has the right to intervene and the second one was narrowed to the importance of language as a means of shaping “the way the world responds to humanitarian crises” (Bellamy, 2006: 13). On whole, the above factors have contributed greatly to the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect paradigms.

Criticism of the Responsibility to Protect Concept toward Sovereignty

It should be stressed that sovereignty, prevention, and intervention are the key components of the contemporary debate regarding the protection of human rights and the achievement of humanitarian objectives. Two elements – state sovereignty and intervention – are frequently considered to be irreconcilable and controversial. About the problem of sovereignty, the past century demonstrates that it remains a serious obstacle in international relations (Bellamy, 2006:14).

In today’s globalized society, the notion of independence and sovereignty is not neglected by the international community. (Evans, 2007). Nevertheless, due to the rise of international interventions, its significance has considerably diminished. According to UN Chapter I on Purposes and Principles (International Development Research Centre, 2001),

[n]othing contained in the present Chapter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Chapter (International Development Research Centre, 2001:7).

Therefore, sovereignty is considered to be a key constitutional guarantee of international order, although the world has now witnessed the increased level of economic globalization and privatization (International Development Research Centre, 2001:8). This accelerated rate results in the pluralization of international order and the establishment of equal relations between states (International Development Research Centre, 2001:7).

Despite the acceptance of the UN Chapter mentioned above, the states are still concerned with humanitarian intervention. In particular, being under the influence of the debates over international peacekeeping, there has been still a question of the “right of humanitarian intervention” (Chandler, 2004: 59). Therefore, the opposition of the developing countries to humanitarian intervention is deeply dramatic and even emotional. This is explained by their tragic colonial past that traumatized the majority of the countries. In this respect, Bellamy and Williams (2005) state,

Opponents of intervention, mainly non-Western states, have been skeptical of the grounds for privileging a moral justification for interventionist practices and have expressed concern that this shift could undermine their rights of sovereignty and possibly usher in a more coercive, Western-dominated, international order…….‘to build a broader understanding of the problem of reconciling intervention for human protection purposes and sovereignty” (Ibid:60).

In particular, during the time of colonialism, most Latin Americans and Afro-Asians suffered from military occupation and unjust treatment. Therefore, the anti-colonial position in their views serves as a powerful instrument for opposing the implementation of the R2P paradigm. In particular, apart from the general purposes of the R2P – that is to rebuild peace and to prevent conflict, the paradigm also encapsulates other cautionary principles consisting in ensuring ethical principles and legitimacy of intervention (Thakur, 2002:329). On humanitarian intervention used in Kosovo, ICISS states, “it is an anathema for a concept describing humanitarian relief and assistance to be used about military action” (Chandler, 2004: 60).

Due to the rise of resentment and protests among the developing countries, the international community has had considerable difficulties in coming up with the rules of intervention. The problem was that there were no agreed measures and solutions to protect people from mass atrocities because no particular principles and strategies were worked out to handle such cases as Rwanda and Kosovo (Evans, 2007). But, according to Evans (2007), the R2P paradigm is an effective way out for the development of effective strategies and rules for preventing genocide and crimes against humanity. At this point, the scholar is striving to prove that the R2P paradigm is not a normative document allowing to use of military intervention, but an obligation to cooperate with states that fail to protect their citizens (Evans, 2007). His reflections and arguments seem to be logical and solid, but the countries with deplorable past may have much more grounds for distrust.

Considering the arguments put forward by Evans (2007) in more detail, it should be stressed that the R2P program is directed as a forcible intervention into the domestic affairs of a state. However, its main task consists in shifting the debate from the international community’s attempt to persuade suffering states that military intervention is aimed at protecting the welfare of the population in such countries and regions as Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, and East Timor (Thakur, 2002:330).

Other Serious Obstacles for Implementing the R2P paradigm.

There are several matters which may hinder the implementation of the R2P paradigm. One is that there are no legal policies that govern international interventions. There is no established body that has the power and authority to decide when and where international intervention is necessary. This is a great challenge for implementing humanitarian policies (Evans, 2007). That is, nation-states have decided to face this problem and to implement the R2P program. In particular, the consensus reached by states is based on three issues: specifying the reasons and nature of prevention, developing effective measures, and providing proposals for institutional reforms (Bellamy, 2009).

Another hindrance to the proper implementation of R2P is mainly because of bureaucracy. Some procedures are so complicated to follow and some cannot be changed therefore they are seldom altered to match the current situation. This makes the procedures rigid to adjust to any changes (International Development Research Centre, 2001:9)

Finally, the effective adoption of R2P is hampered by language barriers. Indeed, the issue of language constitutes a major problem when dealing with humanitarian intervention. The troops should have effective communication skills. They should be able to communicate with each other and with the civilians to achieve the objective of keeping the peace (Bellamy, 2008).

Possible Solutions to the Problem of Sovereignty

The best way to buster the myth about the International community’s goal to control and limit nation states’ sovereignty is to persuade that R2P is not a Western paradigm. Being endorsed by 150 member states, the African Union incorporated this principle in its own Constitutive Act 2000 (Saxer, 2008, p. 5). Therefore, African states have played a significant role in discussions about the R2P paradigm and its enclosure into the World Summit document (Saxer, 2008).

Despite some contradictions of R2P that have previously been discussed, there are some viable solutions aimed at eliminating them. To begin with, the international community should develop effective criteria and principles for intervention. In particular, the best solution is to work out a set of depoliticized rules for intervention aimed at restraining the abuse of the R2P paradigm and providing a peaceful platform for international cooperation (Saxer, 2008).

Another method for preventing the abuse and inappropriate application of R2P consists in clarifying and specifying the terms under which the international community has the right to intervene (International Development Research Centre, 2001:9). As it has been mentioned earlier, there is UN Chapter I on Purposes and Principles presenting the terms allowing the intervention only in case a state fails to protect its citizens (Saxer, 2008:6).

Finally, it should be stressed that the R2P concept should be implemented worldwide to reach the consensus on the most contradicting questions and to work out global strategies for R2P adoption (Totten, 2007). In addition, UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon is planning to implement R2P in all spheres of UN strategy (Saxer, 2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, as it has been disputed in the introduction and elaborated in the main discussion, there are certain obstacles to the implementation of the R2P paradigm. According to the emerging concerns, the developing countries perceived this paradigm as a serious threat to national sovereignty. Hence, according to this paradigm, the international community takes responsibility for those states that are either reluctant or unable to secure their population from mass atrocities. Nevertheless, R2P policies were never adopted because politics of sovereignty curbed the introduction of ethical issues in international relations.

One way or another, the above-mentioned solutions seem to be efficient because they encourage society and a nation to reconcile with their colonial past and to accept the new international order. To be more precise, it has been proposed that it is, first of all, necessary to implement specific criteria for humanitarian intervention to avoid any misconceptions, particularly to accept the rules that would lessen the abuse of the R2P paradigm. Second, there is a strong necessity to specify the terms under which the international community is allowed to intervene and, finally, to establish R2P as a global paradigm that would touch all spheres of political and social life. More importantly, the presented solutions can also change the populations’ outlook on international relations and policies. In particular, it is important to make people believe that humanitarian intervention is only one part of the R2P paradigm that does not constitute any threat to a state’s sovereignty. In my opinion, the introduction of the new international order based on ethical grounds can foster the acceptance of the R2P doctrine.

Reference List

1. Abass, A., 2004. Regional Organization and the development of collective Security:
2. beyond chapter VIII of the UN Charter. New Jersey: Hart Publishing
3. Bellamy, A.J. 2006. Wither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 UN World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs. 20(2), pp. 143-169
4. Bellamy, A.J. 2008. Responsibility to Protect: The global effort to end mass atrocities.
5. New York: Polity.
6. Bellamy, A.J. 2009. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty: The responsibility to protect. New York: Polity.
7. Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. 2005. Peace operations and global order. NY: Routledge.
8. Bleeker, M. 2008. Today’s conversation about Genocide Prevention. Politorbis. 47(2), 2009.
9. Cassesse, A. 1986. The Current legal regulation of the use of force. Netherlands: Martinus Nijoff Publishers.
10. Chandler, D. 2004. The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’. International Peacekeeping. 11(1), pp. 59-81.
11. Cooper, R. H., and Kohler, J. V. 2009. Responsibility to Protect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21^st Century. US: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Evans, G. 2006. From Humanity Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect. Symposium on Humanitarian Intervention.
13. Evans, G. 2008. The responsibility to protect: ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. NJ: Brooklings Institution Press.
14. International Development Research Center. 2001. Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Canada: IDRC.
15. Kuperman, A. 2009. Rethinking the Responsibility to Protect. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. 33, pp. 33-43
16. Pattison, J. 2010. Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?. UK: Oxford University Press.
17. Saxer, M. 2008. The Politics of Responsibility to Protect. Berlin: FES Briefing Paper. pp. 2-8.
18. Schabas, W. A. 2009. What is Genocide? What are the Gaps in the Convention? How to Prevent Genocide? Politorbis. 47(2).
19. Thakur, R. 2002. Intervention, Sovereignty, and the Responsibility to Protect. SAGE Publications. 33(3), pp. 323-340
20. Totten, S., 2007. The prevention and intervention of genocide. London: Transaction Publishers