Introduction
Responsibility to Protect, also known as R2P, is a principle with its roots in international law linked to sovereignty, security, humanitarian obligations, etc. R2P may be invoked to support military intervention (jus ad bellum). It is ironic to note that the R2P was a doctrine introduced by lawyers agitated at the failure in taking actions by the international community during war crimes and crimes against humanity in the late 20th century. This principle still holds its importance as can be seen from very recent examples such as Ukraine, Palestine or Darfur. This article shall look into the facets of R2P which come into play that makes it naturally impossible to be implemented in any scenario that unravels in the international arena.
Historical Context and Emergence of R2P
In the 1990s, the world witnessed atrocities on a scale comparable to World War II, such as the Rwandan genocide where 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. This stark indifference of the international community led to a deep sense of shame and later motivated the intervention in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanian population, even though it lacked UN Security Council (UNSC) authorization. This created a conflict between the need to intervene in such situations and respecting state sovereignty and international law.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged finding a balance between state sovereignty and the duty to address gross human rights violations. In response, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) introduced the R2P in 2001. This concept received significant backing and received the approval of leaders worldwide during the 2005 World Summit.
R2P consists of three pillars, as outlined in Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s 2009 report titled ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’, and while different expressions of support may characterize it differently, the essence of the concept remains constant.
The Pillars of R2P
The Secretary-General developed a comprehensive plan to put R2P into action, with the aim of preventing large-scale atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This approach was characterized by its depth and precision, focusing on specific aspects of the issue. The 2009 report outlined three fundamental pillars of R2P to accomplish this objective.
The first pillar, hailed as the ‘bedrock’ of R2P, casts the responsibility upon the state to protect its populations from these four crimes. The second pillar reveals the international community's duty to support and motivate states in fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to them in the first pillar. Through economic assistance and assisting during crisis and conflicts, states are imbued with the resources to fulfill these obligations.
The third pillar emerges as the most controversial pillar referring to the international community’s responsibility for timely and decisive intervention whenever a state falters in its responsibility. This pillar even allows the international community to even use forceful means when peaceful actions prove to be inefficient. However, to play a delicate balance of diplomacy, the permanent members are directed to exercise the veto power with good faith. The ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings is an example of when spotlight was shed on the controversial nature of this pillar. After a series of protests against authoritarian and repressive regimes in various Arab countries, the UNSC passed various Resolutions imposing arms embargoes, travel bans, etc.
Challenges in Implementing R2P
Sovereignty vs. Humanitarian Obligations:
Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent, internal and external authority over a geographic area. The concept of sovereignty in international law is usually linked to external sovereignty, depending heavily upon the recognition by outsiders.
During 1990’s when the world was shaken by the violence in Yugoslavia, debates regarding the limits of national sovereignty gained prominence. The UN was torn between the imperative of humanitarian intervention and the infringement upon national sovereignty. However, with the evolution of R2P internationally, the concept of sovereignty witnessed a transformation. The essence of R2P lies in the idea that sovereignty is accompanied with the responsibility of the state towards its populations and the international community at large, and not just a tool for limitless power. This nature of R2P marked the shift of the views where humanitarian intervention was considered as an unlawful violation of a country’s sovereignty.
The delicate balance between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention was put to test in Libya during 2011. Mohammad Al-Qaddafi retaliated with extreme violence, resulting in Arab leaders calling for humanitarian intervention. Even though any of the permanent members could have vetoed the resolution, China and Russia abstained from voting, resulting in NATO’s intervention in Libya. However, when NATO refused to back down, undertaking a political mission of regime change, China and Russia became wary of R2P. The continuing violence in Libya prompted the UN to refrain from intervening in the human rights violation in Syria in 2012.
Concerns have also been raised with respect to sovereign equality, and how application of R2P in the ‘Big 5’ and their allies would be impossible with their veto power. For instance, the ongoing violence in Israel-Palestine has garnered attention of the entire world for its gruesome violation of human rights, and yet R2P has not been invoked. This conspicuous abstention by the international community raises the question whether some countries are more equal than others.
2. Jus ad Bellum and R2P:
Jus ad bellum does not address a state’s use of force within its own borders to suppress insurrection, except if directed at a foreign force or leader within its territory. It prohibits one state from using force against another, even on the latter’s territory without consent, regardless of the territorial state’s response.
Presently, there are two key exceptions that mitigate the general prohibition of inter-state use of force. The first exception arises when the UNSC grants authorization for states to employ forceful measures in the interest of upholding or reinstating “international peace and security” in a specific situation. The second exception pertains to a state’s right to act in self-defense when faced with an armed attack. In all other scenarios, the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention typically bar foreign states from using force to protect civilians without the consent of the state where these actions occur.
The prohibitions against violating the sovereignty of a nation may be curbed by measures such as economic sanctions. Although it does not scream of being the most viable, this begs the question on the amount of options that any other state has within the ambit of the R2P. The UNSC currently holds an expansive perspective on what qualifies as a threat to global peace and security. The objectives of the UN aim to avoid violent means to the utmost level possible which in turn forms the basis of jus ad bellum ie., against the use of force between States.
The international community’s duty to protect relies primarily on non-military strategies, such as enhancing early warning systems, employing diplomatic and humanitarian measures, and focusing on vulnerable states under stress. This approach is more efficient than military actions, being easier to initiate and maintain while avoiding the substantial risks, expenses, and destruction associated with military interventions. The success of this approach was evident in its response to post-election violence in Kenya, where diplomatic efforts prevented further escalation, serving as a noteworthy example of the effective implementation of R2P, even without military intervention.
In Syria, millions of people were killed and displaced, Yemen faced the worst humanitarian crisis, in Myanmar, the government was accused of committing genocide, but UN responses were limited due to global division over sovereignty and human rights. Initially, countries agreed that preventing mass atrocities justified violating sovereignty. However, as stated above, the 2011 Libya intervention fractured international consensus on the R2P doctrine. Since that event, China and Russia, especially, wielded veto power to prevent similar interventions in the UNSC. Consequently, the United Nations couldn’t take or authorize military actions to mitigate some of the world’s most violent conflicts.
Conclusion
Since the 2005 UN World Summit, R2P has been in use more widely, and has been practically applied through UN Peacekeepers and Sanctions. In the international scenario, targeted sanctions act as the best tool to address persisting human rights violations, however, they must be accompanied with multilateral diplomatic pressure and sustained political engagement.
Sanctions can act as an effective method for compelling states to fulfill their responsibilities in Pillar I. In a world riddled with complex geopolitical dynamics, the prudent application of sanctions, guided by lessons learned from Libya, Syria, becomes essential in honing non-coercive measures that prevent atrocities without using force, thereby embodying the core of R2P. In order to achieve political consensus in any particular situation, it is important to agree on the specifics of what the states agreed to when they approved R2P in 2005. However, it will vary depending on the evolution of popular opinion. The essence of R2P is constant rectification and evolution based on prior experiences. R2P is truly put to the test when proactive actions are used to protect human dignity without using coercive force.
Authors:
Crystal Ann George and Ronsha Roys Anna are law students at National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
Comments