Lecture discusses the concept of the 'Right to Protect' - the lawful intervention of a third party or parties to stop genocide, stop violence or thwart civil war. Operational and Moral considerations are challenges interveners face.

1. 'R2P'
Right to Protect
The Ethics of Intervention
• Ionian University
• MA in Politics, Language and
Intercultural Communication
• PLC 204
• Presented by:
Greg Kleponis, Ph.D, LL.M

2. R2P Intervention &
Moral Questions

3. Third Party
Intervention
• Always a sense of 'unease'
• Often not a matter of 'could' but of 'should'
• Third parties have an effect on dynamics
• Do not guarantee good outcomes
• Questions:
• Who invited them
• Why
• Do they understand their own roles
• Actions likely to benefit or detract
• More complicated as-if intervention
becomes coercive or forcible

4. When not to
Intervene
• Refusal to intervene in
Czechoslovakia because it was a
conflict …..
• "in a faraway country between
people of whom we know nothing"
Neville Chamberlain.

5. TE Lawrence
• Do not try to do too much with
your own hands. Better the Arabs
do it tolerably than that you do it
perfectly. It is their war, and you
are to help them, not to win it for
them. Actually, also, under the
very odd conditions of Arabia,
your practical work will not be as
good as, perhaps, you think it is.

6. 5 Main
Conflict
Resolution
Roles
• Activist- who is in and almost of one of the parties
• Advocate- who works on behalf of one of the
parties but less likely to play a 'hard game' than
activisty – dipomat or consultant
• Mediator- ultimate advocacy is for the process
rather than parties
• Researcher- journalist or observer – objective
• Enforcer – arbitrators, judges, police who have
formal power to sanction either or all parties.
Funding agencies have this leverage also physical
force of armies.

7. Prevent
• Enabling people to meet their needs
The Provider
• Giving people skills to handle conflict
The Teacher
• Forging relationships across lines of
conflict
The Bridge
Builder

8. Resolve
• Reconciling conflicting interests
Mediator
• Determining disputed rights
Arbiter
• Democratizing power to level the playing field
Equalizer
• Repairing injured relationships
Healer

9. Contain
Witness Paying attention to escalation
Referee Setting limits to the fighting
Peacekeeper Providing protection

10. 2 Types of Parties to Conflict
Powerful 'In-Parties'
They want classic 'neutral' conflict resolution fro
the third parties in order to preserve the status –
quo
Powerless 'Out-Parties'
Seek assistance in their quest for power, justice
and change

11. Principle of Impartiality
• Whatever role an intervener plays, conflict resolution is
incomplete unless the interest of all affected are properly
taken into account
• Focus on 'Human Needs' and "Win-Win' outcomes
• Red Cross- "The Red Cross makes no discrimination as to
nationality, race, religious belief, class or political opinions. It
endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being
guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most
urgent cases of of distress"
• Doesn't take sides
• Medicin Sans Frontieres- not afraid to call out authorities or
to intervene without permission- highly controversial

12. Principle of Mutuality
The Hippocratic Oath
of Intervention
• Fundamental Principle
• Must determine that the intervention is
seen to be likely to more good than harm.
"First do no Harm"
• Must be two way or double headed
arrow.
<--------->
• If not then its' likely intervener is just
doing what 'they themselves want
• Demands that local initiatives and
capabilities be empowered
• Interventions carried out without damage
to local economies and with respect to
local culture

13. Principle of
Sustainability
• Interveners must be determined to 'stay
the course' or not intervene
• IRW Military Operations
• Exit strategies should be built on needs of
those on behalf of intervention
• Not public opinion at home
• Not in the interests of intervening
govts
• The longer interveners stay the more likely
the cumulative disruption and increasingly
seen as unwelcome

14. Principle of Complementarity
• Relations between different interveners
• Interveners and their actions should
complement one another
• Competitive Altruism
• Prohibiting damaging rivalries
• Unnecessary Duplications
• Failures of communication
• Shift from military centric 'negative
peace' to more non-military task
building toward 'positive peace'

15. Principle of
Reflexivity
• Interveners need to look at themselves
• Motives
• Aims
• Interests
• What kind of advocacy to they pursue &
why
• What authority
• Interveners purposes must not be incompatible
with declared aim of intervention.
• Example - organizations that run to disasters to
raise their own profile or pull extra funding-
Incompatible with this principle

16. Principle of
Consistency
• Equal provocation or challenge
should get equal response
• Avoid accusations of double
standards or hypocrisy
• Being 'consistent' in both
evaluation, approach and
response to challenges across
different national, political,
geographic and economic
environments.

17. Principle of
Accountability The relationship between interveners and those in whose name
they claim to act.
Interveners or those organizations that they endorse or sponsor
should be prepared to answer for their motives and actions.
'Quo Warranto'- by what authority to you intervene
'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' - who judges the judges
On-going and comparative assessments of effectiveness of
present and past operations
'Lessons-learned' to improve performance

18. Principle of
Universality
• In order for intervention to be considered a truly
cosmopolitan enterprise it must reflect the
normative values of the international community.
• Authorized bot a global or regional international
organization and it purports
to undertake internationally recognized values that
are cross-culturally endorsed.

19. The
Responsibility
to Protect
• What Role – If any does coercion and use of
armed force have in conflict intervention
resolutions -
• Pacifists- "make peace by peaceful means"
• No place for 'just war' criteria –conflict is a
search for truth and neither party has 'the
answer' final and valid. Intervener must
take actions to persuade only
• 'Just War' - "Jus ad Bellum" - Just war decision
• Faced with murderous opponents of peace
processes or assaults on human rights –
there is legitimate role for armed forces as
neutralizers or protectors
• Currently there is a search for criteria for
intervention and roles and responsibilities of
the international community to intervene

20. Possible
Conditions
• Kofi Annan suggestions
• Threats are 'egregious' - no realistic non-military
alternatives
• Collective action through UN Security Council
has failed
• Humanitarian objective is paramount
• Legitimate interest of international community
• UN Charter Chapter VII
• Last resort

21. 2005 World
Summit R2P
Chapter VII – Case by case basis that appropriate regional powers
may intervene if all else fails.
139. The international community also thru the UN has responsibility
to use diplomtic, humanitarian and peacful means in accordance with
Chapters VI & VII – UN Charter.
138. Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its own
population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and CAH.
Prevention of such crimes & through appropriate and
necessary means

22. Darfur R2P
• Litmus test
• Background:
• 200k killed 2M displaced
• West preoccupied with Iraq-AFG.
• African Union – Disunited "African solution to African
problems' did much to delay & prevent intervention.
• Just War standard applied- deemed peaceful solutions not
exhausted and more harm than good standard
• Despite headline grabbing news- still profound disagreements

23. Just War Criteria
• Thomas Acquinas(14th c) 3 things must exist:
• Authority of sovereign on whose command war is waged
• Just cause is required
• Right intention of those waging war – must intend to
promote good and avoid evil.
• Jus Ad Bellum- criteria to determine when it is right to wage war
• Jus in Bello- how the war should be rightly fought
• You can see how these definitions could be quite subjective

24. War Decision
Criteria
• Just Cause: different from traditional war in that
force is to be used to defend international
norms, decolonization norms, democratic norms,
confict settlement norms, humanitarian & anti-
terrorism
• Legitimate Authority: Interventions multilateral –
UNSC approval
• Right Intention: Tricky- is it for oil....strategic
advantage...hegemony
• Prospect of Success: anticipated success and
balance of benefit-loss- not just military victory
but also reconstruction and nation building
• Last Resort: Consider the principle of escalation
or continuum of coercion.
• Minimum force necessary at each successive
level

25. Conclusion
• Seizure of territory by groups prepared to commit barbarity.
• IS, Boko Haram etc
• How to defeat apart from military force and expulsion
• Is forcible intervention ethically legitimate in all cases of human tragedy
R2P still problematic
• All agree that firm and carefully applied ethical criteria form essential consideration for those
who intervene in conflict.
• Acts of commission and acts of omission carry moral risks.
• Continuum of force or spectrum of force apply the minimum necessary until the next step is
required.
What do we agree on