Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict. The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort. The United Nations Secretary-General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity crimes. The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for example. It has also been argued that commensurate with the responsibility to protect, international law should also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a massive scale.
http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
Responsibility to protect
http://www.globalr2p.org/about_r2p
About R2P
http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/r2p-backgrounder.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/07/24/what-is-the-responsibility-to-protect/
WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/responsibility-to-protect-a-short-history/
Research Interests: Responsibility to Protect and The principle of the Responsibility to Protect
The document discusses the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which holds that sovereign states have a primary responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities, but this responsibility shifts to the international community if the state is unable or unwilling to protect its population. It provides examples of conflicts in Burma, Darfur, and Palestine where R2P applies but has not been fully implemented. It calls on individuals and churches to raise awareness of R2P and put political pressure on governments to uphold their responsibility to protect civilians in armed conflicts.
The document discusses recent developments and challenges in international humanitarian law. It addresses changes in the nature of armed conflicts including their increasing complexity with multiple actors. It examines issues around qualifying situations of violence as international or non-international armed conflicts. It also discusses the development and application of international humanitarian law, including treaty law and challenges around classifying mixed or internationalized armed conflicts.
Settlement of international disputes (International Law) Amicable(Rajat Vaish...R V
Types of Settlement of dispute negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement
The methods of peaceful settlement of disputes fall into three categories:
1.) Diplomatic Method
2.) Adjudicative Method
3.) Instituional Method
About Us:
UltraSpectra is a full-service online company dedicated to providing the services of internet marketing and
IT solutions to professionals and businesses looking to fully leverage the internet.
http://www.ultraspectra.com
http://www.ultraspectra.net
Join Our Network:
facebook.com/ultraspectra
twitter.com/ultraspectra
youtube.com/user/ultraspecra
The Geneva Conventions regulate acceptable behavior during war and armed conflicts, prohibiting torture, rape, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. They also require humane treatment of prisoners of war and protection of civilians. A civil war is fought within a country between groups wanting control of the government. Guerrilla warfare uses small, lightly armed militia units rather than professional armies to topple governments, often with popular support. While guerrillas fight governments, terrorists target civilians and military to create social and political crises. Total wars aim to destroy the enemy's social fabric through mass civilian casualties, while limited wars are fought between armies for political objectives without widespread destruction.
The slideshow provides a comprehensive overview of the field of international security studies, offering an insight into its theoretical developments, topical issues, political applications and implications.
The slides cover a wide range of theories in the field of security studies (from the security dilemma, Cold War deterrence to the work of Copenhagen school), address a variety of security risks and threats (from conventional war to asymmetric conflicts and terrorism to the ‘new wars’) and referent objects of security (from state to human security). In addition, the new forms of security, namely energy security, cyber-security – are presented.
The document discusses the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which holds that sovereign states have a primary responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities, but this responsibility shifts to the international community if the state is unable or unwilling to protect its population. It provides examples of conflicts in Burma, Darfur, and Palestine where R2P applies but has not been fully implemented. It calls on individuals and churches to raise awareness of R2P and put political pressure on governments to uphold their responsibility to protect civilians in armed conflicts.
The document discusses recent developments and challenges in international humanitarian law. It addresses changes in the nature of armed conflicts including their increasing complexity with multiple actors. It examines issues around qualifying situations of violence as international or non-international armed conflicts. It also discusses the development and application of international humanitarian law, including treaty law and challenges around classifying mixed or internationalized armed conflicts.
Settlement of international disputes (International Law) Amicable(Rajat Vaish...R V
Types of Settlement of dispute negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement
The methods of peaceful settlement of disputes fall into three categories:
1.) Diplomatic Method
2.) Adjudicative Method
3.) Instituional Method
About Us:
UltraSpectra is a full-service online company dedicated to providing the services of internet marketing and
IT solutions to professionals and businesses looking to fully leverage the internet.
http://www.ultraspectra.com
http://www.ultraspectra.net
Join Our Network:
facebook.com/ultraspectra
twitter.com/ultraspectra
youtube.com/user/ultraspecra
The Geneva Conventions regulate acceptable behavior during war and armed conflicts, prohibiting torture, rape, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. They also require humane treatment of prisoners of war and protection of civilians. A civil war is fought within a country between groups wanting control of the government. Guerrilla warfare uses small, lightly armed militia units rather than professional armies to topple governments, often with popular support. While guerrillas fight governments, terrorists target civilians and military to create social and political crises. Total wars aim to destroy the enemy's social fabric through mass civilian casualties, while limited wars are fought between armies for political objectives without widespread destruction.
The slideshow provides a comprehensive overview of the field of international security studies, offering an insight into its theoretical developments, topical issues, political applications and implications.
The slides cover a wide range of theories in the field of security studies (from the security dilemma, Cold War deterrence to the work of Copenhagen school), address a variety of security risks and threats (from conventional war to asymmetric conflicts and terrorism to the ‘new wars’) and referent objects of security (from state to human security). In addition, the new forms of security, namely energy security, cyber-security – are presented.
International humanitarian law (IHL) applies during armed conflicts and prohibits acts aimed at terrorizing civilians. Even when IHL does not apply, fundamental human rights and humanitarian laws cannot be violated. States must ensure counterterrorism measures comply with international law. The use of force in self-defense is permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to an armed attack, but the response must be necessary, proportional, and avoid further escalation when possible.
Masters thesis on the right of self-determination. The author argues that this right is applicable outside the colonial context. Even though outside the colonial context the internal aspect of this right should be emphasised, the author describes the limited conditions under which a people is entitled to external self-determination in the form of remedial secession.
This document summarizes key concepts in international relations theory, comparing realist and liberal perspectives. It discusses concepts like anarchy, sovereignty, self-help, and the security dilemma from a realist viewpoint. Liberal concepts discussed include Kantian ideals of democracy, trade, and international institutions promoting cooperation. Realists are skeptical that institutions can significantly influence state behavior motivated by power and national interests in an anarchic system.
The document discusses various topics related to humanitarian intervention and sovereignty including:
1. The responsibility to protect principle holds that states have a primary responsibility to protect civilians, and the international community has a secondary responsibility to assist or intervene if the state is unwilling or unable to protect its population from mass atrocities.
2. There is debate around when and how humanitarian intervention should take place, with questions around the role of the UN Security Council and criteria for determining just cause.
3. While humanitarian intervention has become more accepted, it remains a highly political issue and requires balancing concerns of sovereignty and preventing mass atrocities or genocide. Global consensus and prevention should be the ultimate goals.
The document discusses several key arms control agreements:
1) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons globally and has three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It faces criticism for creating a division between nuclear and non-nuclear states.
2) The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions and has been signed by 180 states but not ratified by all key countries including the US and China. India initially rejected the CTBT as discriminatory but is reevaluating its position.
3) Other agreements discussed include the Missile Technology Control Regime which aims
The document summarizes the origin and development of international law from antiquity to modern times. It discusses that international law originated thousands of years ago between early political groups and cites examples of treaties between city-states in Mesopotamia from 3100 BC and between Egypt and Cheta from 1400 BC. It then outlines the developments of international legal concepts in ancient Rome, the Middle Ages with the emergence of lex mercatoria and maritime law, and debates around the origin of modern international law from the 9th century onward between Islamic, Christian, and Byzantine empires.
Extradition refers to the delivery of a person suspected or convicted of a crime by the state they have fled to, to the state that has jurisdiction over them. Generally, states have jurisdiction over people within their territory, but sometimes criminals flee to other countries, preventing justice. To address this, states adopt extradition agreements to hand suspected criminals back to the affected state. However, extradition is subject to several restrictions, including requiring a formal extradition treaty between the states, not extraditing people for political or religious crimes, requiring sufficient evidence of criminal acts, and only prosecuting extradited individuals for the crimes specified in the extradition request. In conclusion, while extradition is important for administering justice, it is
The document provides information about the formation and objectives of the League of Nations, as well as its structure, membership, powers, and successes and failures. The League of Nations was formed after World War 1 to promote international cooperation and prevent future wars. However, it struggled to achieve its goals due to weaknesses like its lack of an army to enforce its decisions, an changing membership as countries left, and its inability to stop aggression by Japan and Italy in the early 1930s. This signaled that the League was ineffective at fulfilling its most important purpose of maintaining international peace.
International law quick notes. Brief notes on international law. Introduction to international law. Relationship between domestic and international law
The document discusses key principles of extradition including double criminality, specialty, and political exceptions. It provides examples of the extradition of Atong Ang from the US to the Philippines to face plunder charges and the arrest of Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands for his involvement in assassinations in the Philippines. Due to the lack of an extradition treaty, the Philippine government will wait for the Dutch resolution of Sison's case before seeking his return.
This document defines and discusses national security. It explains that national security originally referred to defense against military attacks but now includes non-military threats like terrorism, crime, cyber attacks, and natural disasters. The modern concept of national security evolved during the 17th century to establish the nation-state's sovereign power over domestic and foreign affairs. There are differing views on national security between those who support international institutions and those who favor a nation-state primacy approach. The document also lists some key elements that comprise national security, such as socio-political stability, territorial integrity, and economic solidarity.
The purpose of international law is to maintain peace and harmony between nations. It serves as the supreme law in resolving disputes between countries, with judgments from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) binding on member states. The ICJ settles legal disputes submitted by states and provides advisory opinions to UN bodies. It is composed of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. In contrast, the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
International Humanitarian Law Lecture 6 - Core Principles of IHLNilendra Kumar
This lecture lays down the application and the practice of International Humanitarian Law also known as Law of Armed Conflicts (LOAC). It gives a detailed explanation of the core principles of IHL.
This document discusses different types of state jurisdiction under international law. It begins by defining state jurisdiction as a state's authority to prescribe and enforce laws. It then outlines three main types of jurisdiction: legislative jurisdiction to make laws; executive jurisdiction to enforce laws; and judicial jurisdiction of a state's courts. The document goes on to explain several principles of jurisdiction, including the territorial principle giving a state authority over events in its territory, the nationality principle over its nationals abroad, and the protective principle over threats to the state's security.
The document discusses the protection of human rights at the universal, national, and regional levels. It outlines the key international instruments that establish and promote human rights, including the UN Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also describes the primary UN bodies that work on human rights issues, such as the Human Rights Commission and its sub-committees. Finally, it discusses some regional human rights frameworks in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and the Arab world.
This document discusses international law. It defines international law as a set of rules generally accepted between states. It notes international law is primarily applicable to countries rather than private citizens. The document outlines different types of international law including public international law governing state relations and private international law concerning disputes between private parties involving multiple jurisdictions. It discusses how international treaties, customs, and general legal principles contribute to international law. The document also examines how international conventions enter into force through signing, ratification, and domestic implementation depending on whether a state follows a monist or dualist legal approach.
This document presents a strategic framework for mass atrocity prevention. It begins by noting that while conflict prevention has received significant attention, comparatively less focus has been placed on preventing the specific crimes related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The framework is designed to develop a more specific strategic approach for preventing mass atrocity crimes. It involves clarifying what crimes are being prevented, identifying stages of regression towards atrocities, systematizing policy tools that could mitigate risk factors or change escalatory dynamics, and assessing what is needed for tools to be effective. The framework draws on deductive and inductive reasoning, moving between conceptual assumptions and empirical observations
This document discusses the political will needed among African leaders to protect civilians. It notes that while the African Union has committed to intervening in humanitarian crises, leaders like Mugabe are skeptical of concepts like R2P. The document analyzes challenges in generating political will, like in Darfur where the AU struggled despite commitments. Ultimately, consistent action is needed to judge if leaders will fulfill responsibilities to protect civilians when crises occur.
International humanitarian law (IHL) applies during armed conflicts and prohibits acts aimed at terrorizing civilians. Even when IHL does not apply, fundamental human rights and humanitarian laws cannot be violated. States must ensure counterterrorism measures comply with international law. The use of force in self-defense is permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to an armed attack, but the response must be necessary, proportional, and avoid further escalation when possible.
Masters thesis on the right of self-determination. The author argues that this right is applicable outside the colonial context. Even though outside the colonial context the internal aspect of this right should be emphasised, the author describes the limited conditions under which a people is entitled to external self-determination in the form of remedial secession.
This document summarizes key concepts in international relations theory, comparing realist and liberal perspectives. It discusses concepts like anarchy, sovereignty, self-help, and the security dilemma from a realist viewpoint. Liberal concepts discussed include Kantian ideals of democracy, trade, and international institutions promoting cooperation. Realists are skeptical that institutions can significantly influence state behavior motivated by power and national interests in an anarchic system.
The document discusses various topics related to humanitarian intervention and sovereignty including:
1. The responsibility to protect principle holds that states have a primary responsibility to protect civilians, and the international community has a secondary responsibility to assist or intervene if the state is unwilling or unable to protect its population from mass atrocities.
2. There is debate around when and how humanitarian intervention should take place, with questions around the role of the UN Security Council and criteria for determining just cause.
3. While humanitarian intervention has become more accepted, it remains a highly political issue and requires balancing concerns of sovereignty and preventing mass atrocities or genocide. Global consensus and prevention should be the ultimate goals.
The document discusses several key arms control agreements:
1) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons globally and has three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It faces criticism for creating a division between nuclear and non-nuclear states.
2) The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions and has been signed by 180 states but not ratified by all key countries including the US and China. India initially rejected the CTBT as discriminatory but is reevaluating its position.
3) Other agreements discussed include the Missile Technology Control Regime which aims
The document summarizes the origin and development of international law from antiquity to modern times. It discusses that international law originated thousands of years ago between early political groups and cites examples of treaties between city-states in Mesopotamia from 3100 BC and between Egypt and Cheta from 1400 BC. It then outlines the developments of international legal concepts in ancient Rome, the Middle Ages with the emergence of lex mercatoria and maritime law, and debates around the origin of modern international law from the 9th century onward between Islamic, Christian, and Byzantine empires.
Extradition refers to the delivery of a person suspected or convicted of a crime by the state they have fled to, to the state that has jurisdiction over them. Generally, states have jurisdiction over people within their territory, but sometimes criminals flee to other countries, preventing justice. To address this, states adopt extradition agreements to hand suspected criminals back to the affected state. However, extradition is subject to several restrictions, including requiring a formal extradition treaty between the states, not extraditing people for political or religious crimes, requiring sufficient evidence of criminal acts, and only prosecuting extradited individuals for the crimes specified in the extradition request. In conclusion, while extradition is important for administering justice, it is
The document provides information about the formation and objectives of the League of Nations, as well as its structure, membership, powers, and successes and failures. The League of Nations was formed after World War 1 to promote international cooperation and prevent future wars. However, it struggled to achieve its goals due to weaknesses like its lack of an army to enforce its decisions, an changing membership as countries left, and its inability to stop aggression by Japan and Italy in the early 1930s. This signaled that the League was ineffective at fulfilling its most important purpose of maintaining international peace.
International law quick notes. Brief notes on international law. Introduction to international law. Relationship between domestic and international law
The document discusses key principles of extradition including double criminality, specialty, and political exceptions. It provides examples of the extradition of Atong Ang from the US to the Philippines to face plunder charges and the arrest of Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands for his involvement in assassinations in the Philippines. Due to the lack of an extradition treaty, the Philippine government will wait for the Dutch resolution of Sison's case before seeking his return.
This document defines and discusses national security. It explains that national security originally referred to defense against military attacks but now includes non-military threats like terrorism, crime, cyber attacks, and natural disasters. The modern concept of national security evolved during the 17th century to establish the nation-state's sovereign power over domestic and foreign affairs. There are differing views on national security between those who support international institutions and those who favor a nation-state primacy approach. The document also lists some key elements that comprise national security, such as socio-political stability, territorial integrity, and economic solidarity.
The purpose of international law is to maintain peace and harmony between nations. It serves as the supreme law in resolving disputes between countries, with judgments from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) binding on member states. The ICJ settles legal disputes submitted by states and provides advisory opinions to UN bodies. It is composed of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. In contrast, the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
International Humanitarian Law Lecture 6 - Core Principles of IHLNilendra Kumar
This lecture lays down the application and the practice of International Humanitarian Law also known as Law of Armed Conflicts (LOAC). It gives a detailed explanation of the core principles of IHL.
This document discusses different types of state jurisdiction under international law. It begins by defining state jurisdiction as a state's authority to prescribe and enforce laws. It then outlines three main types of jurisdiction: legislative jurisdiction to make laws; executive jurisdiction to enforce laws; and judicial jurisdiction of a state's courts. The document goes on to explain several principles of jurisdiction, including the territorial principle giving a state authority over events in its territory, the nationality principle over its nationals abroad, and the protective principle over threats to the state's security.
The document discusses the protection of human rights at the universal, national, and regional levels. It outlines the key international instruments that establish and promote human rights, including the UN Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also describes the primary UN bodies that work on human rights issues, such as the Human Rights Commission and its sub-committees. Finally, it discusses some regional human rights frameworks in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and the Arab world.
This document discusses international law. It defines international law as a set of rules generally accepted between states. It notes international law is primarily applicable to countries rather than private citizens. The document outlines different types of international law including public international law governing state relations and private international law concerning disputes between private parties involving multiple jurisdictions. It discusses how international treaties, customs, and general legal principles contribute to international law. The document also examines how international conventions enter into force through signing, ratification, and domestic implementation depending on whether a state follows a monist or dualist legal approach.
This document presents a strategic framework for mass atrocity prevention. It begins by noting that while conflict prevention has received significant attention, comparatively less focus has been placed on preventing the specific crimes related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The framework is designed to develop a more specific strategic approach for preventing mass atrocity crimes. It involves clarifying what crimes are being prevented, identifying stages of regression towards atrocities, systematizing policy tools that could mitigate risk factors or change escalatory dynamics, and assessing what is needed for tools to be effective. The framework draws on deductive and inductive reasoning, moving between conceptual assumptions and empirical observations
This document discusses the political will needed among African leaders to protect civilians. It notes that while the African Union has committed to intervening in humanitarian crises, leaders like Mugabe are skeptical of concepts like R2P. The document analyzes challenges in generating political will, like in Darfur where the AU struggled despite commitments. Ultimately, consistent action is needed to judge if leaders will fulfill responsibilities to protect civilians when crises occur.
Honoured to see my work quoted in the Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Terrorism and Human Rights. I feel privileged to contribute in making a difference.
See full article at https://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Volume-24-1/24-1-Polizzi.pdf
The homeland security bill aims to prevent loss of life and property from disasters through collaboration and information sharing to recognize threats. It applies to preventing both terrorism and natural disasters by introducing preventive measures. Police need contingency plans to continue operating during recovery periods, while their role in recovery is secondary to organizations like FEMA. The bill also raises training requirements and funds for responders to hazards like terrorism.
This document discusses human rights and terrorism. It begins by defining human rights and international human rights law. It then discusses what constitutes terrorism in legal terms. The impact of terrorism on human rights is described, such as threats to the rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. Challenges that counterterrorism measures pose to human rights, like the absolute prohibition against torture, are also examined. The document explores issues such as the transfer of detainees, profiling, due process, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and surveillance. It emphasizes that counterterrorism must be conducted in a way that complies with international law and human rights standards.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Expectations and Realityijtsrd
Protection of citizens from violence and aggression is one of the basic responsibilities of a sovereign country. But sometimes states fail to comply with this responsibility. The Responsibility to Protect R2P is a commitment which was adopted by the members of United Nations UN in 2005. This doctrine aims at addressing four types of crimes genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The R2P was adopted with a lot of expectations but the performance of the R2P has faced criticisms over the years. Mahfujur Rahman | Md. Saifullah Akon "The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine: Expectations and Reality" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-3 , April 2020, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30314.pdf Paper Url :https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/political-science/30314/the-responsibility-to-protect-doctrine-expectations-and-reality/mahfujur-rahman
This document discusses the concept of human security and proposes adopting a new paradigm that focuses on protecting people rather than states. It argues that while states remain important for security, they sometimes fail to protect citizens or become threats themselves. The document proposes that human security complements state security by seeking to protect individuals from a wide range of threats and empowering people to act on their own behalf. It also notes that in today's interconnected world, threats can spread rapidly so security policies must have a stronger, more integrated global response.
Study guide legal committee-topic-area-a rotaract global mun 2015Adrian Dan Pop
Terrorism overall, as well as the issue of measures for combating terrorism in particular,
can be seen from a lot of perspectives, i.e. social, political, economic etc.
Among those perspectives is the legal one. Within the context of the legal committee,
the notion of combating terrorism should be seen from its purely legal perspective, so
as the debate to be efficient and to the point under examination. One of the mandates
of the UNGA is the promotion of the international public law, under Article 13 UN
Charter, which writes that “The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make
recommendations for the purpose of: a. promoting international cooperation in the
political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and
its codification; […]”. That being said, it is of crucial importance that this committee
addresses the notion of combating terrorism by references to the international humanitarian
law as now lies and the international law of human rights, formed by the existing
conventions specialised or not on terrorism and by customary international law
and any other international law sectors involved with this notion. Additionally, proposals
for codifications or concerted practices that could be considered as able to lead
to custom may be discussed. Purely social, political or other but legal observations do
not concern the Legal Committee and will not be accepted.
This document discusses the concept of human security. It provides background on how human security became part of international discourse in 1994. It then outlines three conceptions of human security and debates around defining and applying the concept. Key risks to human security are also examined, such as state failure, organized violence, relative poverty, and threats from pandemics, environmental degradation, and terrorism.
This document summarizes a conference held by the International Peace Academy, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Center on International Organization on the topic of human rights, the United Nations, and the struggle against terrorism. The conference brought together experts on terrorism, security, human rights, and international policy to discuss the complex relationship between counterterrorism efforts and upholding human rights standards. Key issues discussed included balancing security concerns with human rights protections, and ensuring independent review of government threat assessments to prevent overreach and unwarranted restrictions of human rights.
The document provides an analysis of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in the context of the Syrian conflict from 2011-2016. It examines the mass atrocities committed during this time, particularly by the Assad regime against civilians. It discusses the challenges faced by the UN Security Council in responding to the crisis due to deadlocks. The document also analyzes the 9 UNSC resolutions passed during this period and challenges to implementing R2P, such as the complexity of the civil war and involvement of various armed groups and states in the conflict.
The document summarizes the work and role of the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. It defines genocide and outlines the UN's responsibility to prevent genocide through early warning, advocacy, and mobilizing action. The Special Adviser collects information on human rights violations that could lead to genocide and advises the UN on preventive actions. The document also discusses the UN's broader role in genocide prevention through development, peacekeeping, and establishing accountability.
The document discusses several key guiding documents for humanitarian action and regulation, including UN resolutions, international laws and treaties, and non-binding frameworks and standards. It outlines Resolution 46/182 which established the framework for emergency relief coordination and strengthened humanitarian assistance. It also describes frameworks like the Hyogo Framework for Action, the Code of Conduct, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and the Sphere Project which provide standards and principles for humanitarian response, protection of rights, and disaster risk reduction.
This document summarizes a report on delivering human security through multi-level governance. It discusses conceptualizing human security, assessing human security at the local level, the role of regional governance in promoting human security using the EU as a case study, and other regional experiences. The key conclusions are that human security encompasses freedom from fear and want, shifts the focus from states to individuals, and is context-specific. It requires actors at all levels of governance from local to global. Regional organizations like the EU and AU play an important role in aspects of human security within their regions. Local assessment of human security indicators can empower communities and improve governance.
Peace and security are fundamental human needs that are closely tied to development goals like prosperity, inclusion, and human rights. However, achieving peace and security is challenging as threats like armed conflicts, terrorism, and human rights abuses endanger lives and stability. The document outlines some of the main contemporary threats to peace and security, including ongoing armed conflicts, terrorism, and their severe human and economic costs. It also discusses strategies for preventing disputes from escalating, such as preventive diplomacy, disarmament, and early warning systems to enable timely action from the UN Security Council.
Peace and security are fundamental human needs and aspirations. They are essential for the well-being of individuals, communities, and nations. They are closely interconnected with other pillars of human development, such as economic prosperity, social inclusion, and respect for human rights.
However, achieving peace and security is a complex and challenging task. Throughout history, humankind has faced numerous threats to peace and security, including armed conflicts, terrorism, organized crime, and human rights abuses.
#wajidkhan #wajidkhanMP #politics #canadianpolitician #wajidkhanpolitician
This document discusses the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in international law. It begins by providing background on R2P, including its historical roots in concepts like humanitarian intervention and the development of the UN. The document then analyzes whether states have a duty or choice to protect populations under R2P, and whether current mechanisms allow for effective protection. It argues that while R2P may be emerging as a duty, reforms are needed to the UN Security Council and a clearer legal definition of R2P to strengthen its effectiveness in preventing mass atrocities.
The World Humanitarian Summit was held in Istanbul, Turkey on May 23-24, 2016. It was the largest gathering on humanitarian issues, with over 9,000 participants from 173 countries. The Summit addressed the growing humanitarian needs driven by conflicts, natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, and lack of resources. Key commitments included:
1) Increasing political efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts through early warning systems, mediation, and addressing root causes.
2) Enhancing compliance with international humanitarian law by training armed forces, adopting legislation, and improving accountability.
3) Leaving no one behind through increased support for refugees and internally displaced people, ensuring gender equality, and launching an education fund.
Ghetnet metiku reflections on the au convention for the protection and assist...Ghetnet Metiku
The document provides an overview and background on the AU Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons (Kampala Convention). It discusses key points, including that the Convention is based on pre-existing human rights frameworks, defines IDPs in line with international principles, and aims to prevent displacement, protect displaced persons, and protect returnees. It also notes that the Convention identifies states as primarily responsible but also outlines obligations of non-state actors, and provides an implementation framework through existing AU monitoring systems rather than creating new ones.
International Legal protection of Human rights in armed conflicts.Christina Parmionova
In recent decades, armed conflict has blighted the lives of millions of civilians. Serious violations of international humanitarian and human
rights law are common in many armed conflicts. In certain circumstances, some of these violations may even constitute genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In the past 20 years, Governments, rebels, politicians, diplomats, activists,
demonstrators and journalists have referred to international humanitarian
law and human rights in armed conflicts. They are regularly referred to
in United Nations Security Council resolutions, in United Nations Human
Rights Council discussions, in political pamphlets of opposition movements,
in reports of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in the training of soldiers and in diplomatic discussions. International human rights law and international humanitarian law are now important parameters for many
military commanders, advised on the ground by lawyers. Finally, they
are often referred to by defence lawyers and prosecutors in international
and—to a still limited extent—domestic tribunals, and form the basis for
well-reasoned verdicts.
International human rights law and international humanitarian law share
the goal of preserving the dignity and humanity of all. Over the years, the
General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and, more recently,
the Human Rights Council have considered that, in armed conflict, parties to the conflict have legally binding obligations concerning the rights of
persons affected by the conflict. Although different in scope, international human rights law and international humanitarian law offer a series of protections to persons in armed conflict, whether civilians, persons who
are no longer participating directly in hostilities or active participants in the conflict. Indeed, as has been recognized, inter alia, by international and
regional courts, as well as by United Nations organs, treaty bodies and human rights special procedures, both bodies of law apply to situations of armed conflict and provide complementary and mutually reinforcing protection.
Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) AAPP report in Burmese The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), also known as AAPP,
is a non-profit human rights organization based in Mae Sot, Thailand. AAPP was founded in 2000
by former political prisoners living in exile on the Thai/Burma border.
Since then, the organization has been run by former political prisoners,
with two offices being opened inside Burma in 2012, one in Rangoon and the other in Mandalay.
AAPP advocates and lobbies for the release of remaining political prisoners and
for the improvement of the lives of political prisoners after their release.
The various assistance programs for political prisoners and their family members
are aimed at ensuring they have access to education, vocational trainings, mental
health counseling and healthcare.
Identity crisis ethnicity and conflict in myanmar crisis groupMYO AUNG Myanmar
REPORT 312 / ASIA 28 AUGUST 2020
Identity Crisis: Ethnicity and Conflict in Myanmar
Ethnicity and conflict are tightly linked in Myanmar, as communal groups take up arms to press grievances for which they have found no other recourse. The problem calls for dialogue and deep reform, but meanwhile authorities can take smaller steps to indicate their positive intent.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312-identity-crisis-ethnicity-and-conflict-myanmar?utm_source=Sign+Up+to+Crisis+Group%27s+Email+Updates&utm_campaign=1732944c02-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_28_08_41_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dab8c11ea-1732944c02-359431769
Asia Foundation. Note that the data are from 2016, so this map does not represent the current situation on
CHINA IS PLAYING MYANMAR GROUND THE KYAUKPHYU SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND CHIN...MYO AUNG Myanmar
CHINA IS PLAYING MYANMAR GROUND THE KYAUKPHYU SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND CHINA STRATEGIC DEEP-SEA PORT PROJECT
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/chinas-strategic-port-project-moves-step-closer-reality-myanmar-oks-joint-venture.html
China’s Strategic Port Project Moves Step Closer to Reality as Myanmar OKs Joint Venture
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/construction-chinas-bri-deep-sea-port-start-soon-myanmars-rakhine-state-govt.html
Construction on China's BRI Deep Sea Port to Start Soon in Myanmar's Rakhine State: Govt
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/minister-rejects-fears-debt-trap-chinese-backed-port.html
Minister Rejects Fears of Debt Trap Over Chinese-Backed Port
https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/editorial/kyaukphyu-danger-slipping-hands.html
Is Kyaukphyu in Danger of Slipping Out of Our Hands?
http://www.thaibizmyanmar.com/th/news/detail.php?ID=2948
An industrial zone project within the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Rakhine State will be developed for US$30 billion
4 มีนาคม 2563
https://elevenmyanmar.com/news/first-phase-of-kyaukphyu-deep-seaport-project-expected-to-cost-13-bln
First phase of Kyaukphyu Deep Seaport project expected to cost $ 1.3 bln
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/18/c_138716099.htm
Xinhua Headlines: Kyaukpyu port to become model project in China-Myanmar BRI cooperation
Source: Xinhua| 2020-01-18 20:49:31|Editor: huaxia
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/20/c_138720186.htm
Feature: How the development of Myanmar's Kyaukpyu port won the hearts of locals
Source: Xinhua| 2020-01-20 11:27:42|Editor: Wang Yamei
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2020/02/17/china039s-citic-to-build-myanmar039s-huge-kyaukphyu-deep-seaport-first-phase-to-cost-us13-bln
China's CITIC to build Myanmar's huge Kyaukphyu Deep Seaport, first phase to cost US$1.3 bln
ASEANPLUS NEWS
Monday, 17 Feb 2020
1:35 PM MYT
https://splash247.com/china-inks-kyaukphyu-development-deal-with-myanmar/#:~:text=China%20has%20signed%20an%20agreement,visit%20to%20Myanmar%20last%20weekend.
China inks Kyaukphyu development deal with Myanmar
Jason Jiang Jason JiangJanuary 20, 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyaukphyu
https://asiatimes.com/2019/07/china-led-port-project-inches-ahead-in-myanmar/
AT FINANCE, MYANMAR
China-led port project inches ahead in Myanmar
CITIC-led consortium this month started legally required impact assessments but the controversial $1.3 billion mega-project is still far from a done deal
By THOMPSON CHAU
JULY 15, 2019
The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defendersMYO AUNG Myanmar
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow/
Report / July 29, 2020
DEFENDING TOMORROW
The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders
The climate crisis is arguably the greatest global and existential threat we face. As it escalates, it serves to exacerbate many of the other serious problems in our world today – from economic inequality to racial injustice and the spread of zoonotic diseases.
For years, land and environmental defenders have been the first line of defence against the causes and impacts of climate breakdown. Time after time, they have challenged those companies operating recklessly, rampaging unhampered through forests, skies, wetlands, oceans and biodiversity hotspots.
https://youtu.be/FM7X1tnT4Sc
Download the full report Defending Tomorrow: The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders (High resolution, 28.4MB, PDF)
Download the full report Defending Tomorrow: The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders (Low resolution, 6.6MB, PDF)
User Privacy or Cyber Sovereignty Freedom House Special Report 2020MYO AUNG Myanmar
https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/user-privacy-or-cyber-sovereignty?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=SPOTLIGHTFRDM_072720
Special Report 2020
User Privacy or Cyber Sovereignty?
Assessing the human rights implications of data localization
WRITTEN BY-Adrian Shahbaz-Allie Funk-Andrea Hackl
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/FINAL_Data_Localization_human_rights_07232020.pdf
USER PRIVACY OR CYBER SOVEREIGNTY?
Assessing the human rights implications of data localization
Freedom of Expression Active and Seeking Justice from MyanmarMYO AUNG Myanmar
Freedom of Expression Active and seeking justice from MYANMAR
https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2020/07/16/seeking-justice-an-analysis-of-obstacles-and-opportunities-for-civil-society-groups-pursuing-accountability-for-human-rights-violations-in-domestic-courts-in-kachin-and-northern-shan-states/
SEEKING JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS OF OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS PURSUING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN DOMESTIC COURTS IN KACHIN AND NORTHERN SHAN STATES
Kachin Women’s Association – Thailand (KWAT) and Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR) are releasing a new report on access to justice in Burma, in which we identify strategies for local civil society groups, demand political and legal reforms, and call on donor agencies to better support assistance to victims of the most serious human rights violations.
https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/EngA-Chance-to-Fix-in-Time.pdf
“A Chance to Fix in Time”
Analysis of Freedom of Expression in
Four Years Under the Current Government
https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2020/07/16/%e1%80%a1%e1%80%81%e1%80%bb%e1%80%ad%e1%80%94%e1%80%ba%e1%80%99%e1%80%ae%e1%80%95%e1%80%bc%e1%80%84%e1%80%ba%e1%80%86%e1%80%84%e1%80%ba%e1%80%81%e1%80%bd%e1%80%84%e1%80%ba%e1%80%b7-%e1%80%a1-2/
အချိန်မီပြင်ဆင်ခွင့် – အစိုးရသက်တမ်း ၄နှစ်အတွင်း လွတ်လပ်စွာထုတ်ဖော်ပြောဆိုခွင့်ကို ဆန်းစစ်ခြင်းအစီရင်ခံစာ
SHWE KOKKO BORDER KAYIN STATE PROJECT COLLECTIONMYO AUNG Myanmar
ALL ABOUT SHWE KOKKO PROJECT KAYIN STATE COLLECTIONS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwe_Kokko Shwe Kokko https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/shwe-kokko-a-paradise-for-chinese-investment/ Shwe Kokko: A paradise for Chinese investment SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 http://karennews.org/2020/03/shwe-koko-big-winners-burma-army-and-international-crime-syndicates-at-expense-of-karen-people-knu-community-groups-want-it-stopped/ Shwe Koko: Big Winners – Burma Army and international Crime Syndicates at Expense of Karen People – KNU, Community Groups Want it Stopped Karen News Send an emailMarch 26, 2020 https://asiatimes.com/2019/03/a-chinatown-mysteriously-emerges-in-backwoods-myanmar/ A Chinatown mysteriously emerges in backwoods Myanmar Shwe Kokko, a remote town along Myanmar's Moei River, is the latest odd and bold outpost of China's Belt and Road Initiative By BERTIL LINTNER MARCH 1, 2019 https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/305-commerce-and-conflict-navigating-myanmars-china-relationship https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/305-commerce-and-conflict-myanmar-china%20(1)_0.pdf Commerce and Conflict: Navigating Myanmar’s China Relationship Asia Report N°305 | 30 March 2020 https://www.bnionline.net/en/news/chinas-thai-myanmar-border-investment-shwe-kokko-chinatown-mega-project CHINA’S THAI-MYANMAR BORDER INVESTMENT: Shwe Kokko Chinatown mega-project http://monnews.org/2020/03/28/gambling-away-our-land-kpsn-report-raises-questions-about-shwe-kokko-extension-project/ ‘Gambling Away Our Land’; KPSN report raises questions about Shwe Kokko Extension project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=900Fzrn8DzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etlg2eYn7HM https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/the-mystery-man-behind-the-shwe-kokko-project/?f
Myanmar language version of the UN Charter.Yangon charter myanmarMYO AUNG Myanmar
Myanmar language version of the UN Charter.
Source: https://unic.un.org/aroundworld/unics/common/documents/publications/uncharter/yangon_charter_myanmar.pdf
https://unic.un.org/aroundworld/unics/common/documents/publications/uncharter/yangon_charter_myanmar.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3tttG9XprzHH4_yCQNOg8_u8g6z23fqYLqeCUvvIkHAqzTLKjSnB1OT3g
WORLD INVESTMENT REPORT 2020 BY UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELO...MYO AUNG Myanmar
WORLD INVESTMENT REPORT 2020
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT UNCTAD
ttps://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2396&utm_source=CIO+-+General+public&utm_campaign=5e26d15771-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_17_11_42_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3d334fa428-5e26d15771-70594621
Global foreign direct investment projected to plunge 40% in 202016 June 2020
COVID-19 causes steep drop in investment flows, hitting developing countries hardest. Recovery is not expected before 2022, says new UNCTAD report.
Myanmar Amber traps scientists in ethical dilemma over funding warMYO AUNG Myanmar
Myanmar is a major producer of amber, a fossilized tree resin. Amber is valued for jewelry, and also serves as a sort of time capsule that provides scientific clues to prehistoric life with fossilized inclusions such as insects, birds and dinosaur footprints.
Meanwhile, the main amber-mining areas in the country are located in an internal conflict zone where an ethnic minority is fighting against the national armed forces, and the amber also comes with problems of human rights violations and smuggling.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Location/Southeast-Asia/Myanmar-amber-traps-scientists-in-ethical-dilemma-over-funding-war
Myanmar amber traps scientists in ethical dilemma over funding war
Fossils like those in 'Jurassic Park' draw scrutiny as Kachin conflict drags on
https://www.facebook.com/MYOAUNGNAYPYIDAW/posts/2839212596177214
သယံဇာတစစ်ပွဲ
မြန်မာ့ပယင်းရဲ့ သိပ္ပံပညာရှင်တွေကို စွဲဆောင်နိုင်မှုက ကျင့်ဝတ်ဆိုင်ရာ အကျပ်ရိုက်မှုဖြစ်စေပြီး စစ်ပွဲတွေအတွက် ငွေကြေးထောက်ပံ့ရာလမ်းကြောင်းဖြစ်နေ
SITUATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OVERVIEW IN BURMA (JANUARY – APRIL 2020)MYO AUNG Myanmar
The document provides an overview of the human rights situation in Burma from January to April 2020. It discusses concerns around the militarized COVID-19 response, censorship of free press and ongoing conflicts in Rakhine, Shan and Karen states that are displacing civilians and restricting access to aid. Human rights abuses documented included killings, torture, arrests and restrictions on media that were primarily committed by the Burma Army across the ethnic states. Civil society groups are working to address humanitarian needs but fighting continues despite calls for ceasefires.
2019 country reports on human rights practices burma united state of america ...MYO AUNG Myanmar
Myanmar Aung
21 mins ·
https://burmese.voanews.com/a/us-state-depart…/5325155.html…
ကမ္ဘာလုံးဆိုင်ရာ ကန်အစီရင်ခံစာထဲက မြန်မာလူ့အခွင့်အရေး အခြေအနေ
https://www.state.gov/…/…/BURMA-2019-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf
https://www.state.gov/…/2019-country-reports-on-human-righ…/
2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – the Human Rights Reports – cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements. The U.S. Department of State submits reports on all countries receiving assistance and all United Nations member states to the U.S. Congress in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974.
MARCH 11, 2020
https://www.state.gov/assistant-secretary-for-democracy-hu…/
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Robert A. Destro On the Release of the 2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
SPECIAL BRIEFING
ROBERT A. DESTRO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR
PRESS BRIEFING ROOM
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 11, 2020
Executive Summary of Independent Commission of Enquiry "ICOE" Final Report En...MYO AUNG Myanmar
Executive Summary Of Independent Commission of Enquiry-ICOE' Final Report ENGLISH-BURMESE
https://www.facebook.com/myanmarpresidentoffice.gov.mm/posts/2632138836833836
ENGLISH VERSION
Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE)
https://www.icoe-myanmar.org/
Executive Summary Of Independent Commission of Enquiry-ICOE' Final Report
https://www.facebook.com/myanmarpresidentoffice.gov.mm/posts/2632129370168116
BURMESE VERSION
လွတ်လပ်သောစုံစမ်းစစ်ဆေးရေးကော်မရှင် (Independent Commission of Enquiry-ICOE) ၏ အပြီးသတ်အစီရင်ခံစာ အကျဉ်းချုပ်\
2019 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Right...MYO AUNG Myanmar
https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=29979&nhri=1
2019 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia
7 October 2019 2:36 pm
https://www.forum-asia.org/uploads/wp/2019/10/3.0-Online-ANNI-Report-2019.pdf
https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=29931
Myanmar: Promote press freedom, and end reprisals against Development Media Group
3 October 2019 3:58 pm
https://www.forum-asia.org/uploads/wp/2019/10/Press-release-Myanmar-DMG.pdf
ALL ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) AND MYANMARMYO AUNG Myanmar
ALL ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) AND MYANMAR
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court
https://www.icj-cij.org/en-basic-toolkit
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ICJ
Information Department
information@icj-cij.org
https://opiniojuris.org/2019/11/13/the-gambia-v-myanmar-at-the-international-court-of-justice-points-of-interest-in-the-application/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/cases-brought-myanmar-deliver-justice-rohingya-191117174800430.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/war-crimes-judges-approve-investigation-violence-against-rohingya-icc-myammar
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-situation-of-the-rohingya-is-there-a-role-for-the-international-court-of-justice/
https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/gambia-files-lawsuit-against-myanmar-international-court-justice
STIMSON INNOVATIVE IDEAS CHANGING THE WORLD AND CHINA-MEKONG RIVER AND MYANMARMYO AUNG Myanmar
STIMSON INNOVATIVE IDEAS CHANGING THE WORLD AND CHINA-MEKONG RIVER AND MYANMAR
The Stimson Center is a nonpartisan policy research center working to protect people, preserve the planet, and promote security & prosperity. Stimson’s award-winning research serves as a roadmap to address borderless threats through concerted action. Our formula is simple: we gather the brightest people to think beyond soundbites, create solutions, and make those solutions a reality. We follow the credo of one of history’s leading statesmen, Henry L. Stimson, in taking “pragmatic steps toward ideal objectives.” We are practical in our approach and independent in our analysis. Our innovative ideas change the world.
https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/Cronin-China%20Supply%20Chain%20Shift.pdf
https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/SC_EnergyPublication.FINAL_.pdf
https://www.stimson.org/content/powering-mekong-basin-connect
https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/WEB-FEB_Cambodia%20Report.pdf
https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/slower-smaller-cheaper-the-reality-of-the-china-myanmar-economic-corridor
Slower, smaller, cheaper: the reality of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor
https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/peace-through-development-chinas-experiment-in-myanmar
Peace through development: China’s experiment in Myanmar
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-walks-political-tightrope-in-Myanmar
China walks political tightrope in Myanmar
Beijing should leverage its influence with military
https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/why-china-is-sceptical-about-the-peace-process
Why China is sceptical about the peace process
https://www.stimson.org/content/%E2%80%98loose-end%E2%80%99-peace-process
The ‘loose end’ of the peace process
The Stimson Center
communications@stimson.org
THE ASSIATANCE ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS (BURMA)MYO AUNG Myanmar
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma),
https://aappb.org/background/about-aapp/
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), otherwise known as AAPP, is a human rights organization based in Mae Sot, Thailand and Rangoon, Burma. AAPP advocates for the release of all remaining political prisoners in Burma and for the improvement of their quality of life during and after incarceration. AAPP has developed rehabilitation and assistance programs for those political activists who have been released while continuing to document the ongoing imprisonment of political activists in Burma.
As long as political prisoners exist inside Burma, Burma will not be free. They represent the struggle for democracy, human rights, equality and freedom for the people of Burma. This makes the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners an integral part of Burma’s drive for national reconciliation.
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER A GUIDE FOR FIRST NATIONS COMUNITIES AND ADVOCATES MYO AUNG Myanmar
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/water1019_brochure_web.pdf
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WATER A GUIDE FOR FIRST NATIONS COMUNITIES AND ADVOCATES
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/canada0616web.pdf
Make it Safe
Canada’s Obligation to End the First Nations Water Crisis
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/canada0616_brochure_web.pdf
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Natural Resource Governance Reform and the Peace Process in MyanmarMYO AUNG Myanmar
NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE REFORM AND THE PEACE PROCESS IN MYANMAR
KEVIN M. WOODS
https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/natural-resource-governance-reform-and-the-peace-process-in-myanmar/
FORESTS OCT 18, 2019
Natural Resource Governance Reform and the Peace Process in Myanmar
By Kevin M. Woods
https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/executive-summary-of-natural-resource-governance-and-the-peace-process-in-myanmar/
https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Forest-Trends_NRG_Peace_Myanmar_Final_ES.pdf
https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/forest-trends-comments-on-myanmar-draft-forest-rules-2019-regarding-land-rights/
Forest Trends Comments on Myanmar Draft Forest Rules (2019) Regarding Land Rights
https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Forest-Rules-Brief-2019-FINAL-Letter.pdf
https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Forest_Rules_Brief_2019_FINAL_A4_BURMESE-FINAL.pdf
https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/what-is-in-myanmars-first-eiti-forestry-reports/
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “The Intersection between Competition and Data Privacy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 13 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/ibcdp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Juraj Čorba, Chair of OECD Working Party on Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIGO), was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
1.) Introduction
Our Movement is not new; it is the same as it was for Freedom, Justice, and Equality since we were labeled as slaves. However, this movement at its core must entail economics.
2.) Historical Context
This is the same movement because none of the previous movements, such as boycotts, were ever completed. For some, maybe, but for the most part, it’s just a place to keep your stable until you’re ready to assimilate them into your system. The rest of the crabs are left in the world’s worst parts, begging for scraps.
3.) Economic Empowerment
Our Movement aims to show that it is indeed possible for the less fortunate to establish their economic system. Everyone else – Caucasian, Asian, Mexican, Israeli, Jews, etc. – has their systems, and they all set up and usurp money from the less fortunate. So, the less fortunate buy from every one of them, yet none of them buy from the less fortunate. Moreover, the less fortunate really don’t have anything to sell.
4.) Collaboration with Organizations
Our Movement will demonstrate how organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Urban League, Black Lives Matter, and others can assist in creating a much more indestructible Black Wall Street.
5.) Vision for the Future
Our Movement will not settle for less than those who came before us and stopped before the rights were equal. The economy, jobs, healthcare, education, housing, incarceration – everything is unfair, and what isn’t is rigged for the less fortunate to fail, as evidenced in society.
6.) Call to Action
Our movement has started and implemented everything needed for the advancement of the economic system. There are positions for only those who understand the importance of this movement, as failure to address it will continue the degradation of the people deemed less fortunate.
No, this isn’t Noah’s Ark, nor am I a Prophet. I’m just a man who wrote a couple of books, created a magnificent website: http://www.thearkproject.llc, and who truly hopes to try and initiate a truly sustainable economic system for deprived people. We may not all have the same beliefs, but if our methods are tried, tested, and proven, we can come together and help others. My website: http://www.thearkproject.llc is very informative and considerably controversial. Please check it out, and if you are afraid, leave immediately; it’s no place for cowards. The last Prophet said: “Whoever among you sees an evil action, then let him change it with his hand [by taking action]; if he cannot, then with his tongue [by speaking out]; and if he cannot, then, with his heart – and that is the weakest of faith.” [Sahih Muslim] If we all, or even some of us, did this, there would be significant change. We are able to witness it on small and grand scales, for example, from climate control to business partnerships. I encourage, invite, and challenge you all to support me by visiting my website.
Why Psychological Safety Matters for Software Teams - ACE 2024 - Ben Linders.pdfBen Linders
Psychological safety in teams is important; team members must feel safe and able to communicate and collaborate effectively to deliver value. It’s also necessary to build long-lasting teams since things will happen and relationships will be strained.
But, how safe is a team? How can we determine if there are any factors that make the team unsafe or have an impact on the team’s culture?
In this mini-workshop, we’ll play games for psychological safety and team culture utilizing a deck of coaching cards, The Psychological Safety Cards. We will learn how to use gamification to gain a better understanding of what’s going on in teams. Individuals share what they have learned from working in teams, what has impacted the team’s safety and culture, and what has led to positive change.
Different game formats will be played in groups in parallel. Examples are an ice-breaker to get people talking about psychological safety, a constellation where people take positions about aspects of psychological safety in their team or organization, and collaborative card games where people work together to create an environment that fosters psychological safety.
This presentation by Yong Lim, Professor of Economic Law at Seoul National University School of Law, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “Pro-competitive Industrial Policy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/pcip.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
The importance of sustainable and efficient computational practices in artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning has become increasingly critical. This webinar focuses on the intersection of sustainability and AI, highlighting the significance of energy-efficient deep learning, innovative randomization techniques in neural networks, the potential of reservoir computing, and the cutting-edge realm of neuromorphic computing. This webinar aims to connect theoretical knowledge with practical applications and provide insights into how these innovative approaches can lead to more robust, efficient, and environmentally conscious AI systems.
Webinar Speaker: Prof. Claudio Gallicchio, Assistant Professor, University of Pisa
Claudio Gallicchio is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Pisa, Italy. His research involves merging concepts from Deep Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Randomized Neural Systems, and he has co-authored over 100 scientific publications on the subject. He is the founder of the IEEE CIS Task Force on Reservoir Computing, and the co-founder and chair of the IEEE Task Force on Randomization-based Neural Networks and Learning Systems. He is an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (TNNLS).
• For a full set of 530+ questions. Go to
https://skillcertpro.com/product/servicenow-cis-itsm-exam-questions/
• SkillCertPro offers detailed explanations to each question which helps to understand the concepts better.
• It is recommended to score above 85% in SkillCertPro exams before attempting a real exam.
• SkillCertPro updates exam questions every 2 weeks.
• You will get life time access and life time free updates
• SkillCertPro assures 100% pass guarantee in first attempt.
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Tim Capel, Director of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office Legal Service, was made during the discussion “The Intersection between Competition and Data Privacy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 13 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/ibcdp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Professor Giuseppe Colangelo, Jean Monnet Professor of European Innovation Policy, was made during the discussion “The Intersection between Competition and Data Privacy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 13 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/ibcdp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Thibault Schrepel, Associate Professor of Law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam University, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice at UNSW Sydney, was made during the discussion “The Intersection between Competition and Data Privacy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 13 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/ibcdp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
Gamify it until you make it Improving Agile Development and Operations with ...Ben Linders
So many challenges, so little time. While we’re busy developing software and keeping it operational, we also need to sharpen the saw, but how? Gamification can be a way to look at how you’re doing and find out where to improve. It’s a great way to have everyone involved and get the best out of people.
In this presentation, Ben Linders will show how playing games with the DevOps coaching cards can help to explore your current development and deployment (DevOps) practices and decide as a team what to improve or experiment with.
The games that we play are based on an engagement model. Instead of imposing change, the games enable people to pull in ideas for change and apply those in a way that best suits their collective needs.
By playing games, you can learn from each other. Teams can use games, exercises, and coaching cards to discuss values, principles, and practices, and share their experiences and learnings.
Different game formats can be used to share experiences on DevOps principles and practices and explore how they can be applied effectively. This presentation provides an overview of playing formats and will inspire you to come up with your own formats.
Gamify it until you make it Improving Agile Development and Operations with ...
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT R2P
1. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 1/23
Responsibility to protect
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member
states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity.[1][2]
The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a
responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations.[3][4][5] The principle is
based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to
sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[6][7]
The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early
warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians
from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests
solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.[8] The United Nations Secretary-
General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available
to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity
crimes.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the
principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for
example.[17][18][19][20][21][22] It has also been argued that commensurate with the responsibility to protect,
international law should also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect
themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a massive scale.[23]
1 Definition
1.1 The Scope of the Responsibility to Protect
1.2 Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
1.3 The Responsibility to Protect and 'Humanitarian Intervention'
2 History of the Responsibility to Protect
2.1 1990s: Origins
2.2 2000: African Union proposes a right to intervene
2.3 2000: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
2.4 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
2.5 Secretary-General's 2009 report
2.6 Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
3 United Nations
Contents
2. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 2/23
3.1 Security Council
3.2 Secretary-General reports
3.3 Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
4 In practice
4.1 Kenya 2007/2008
4.2 Ivory Coast 2011
4.3 Libya 2011
4.4 Central African Republic (CAR) 2013
4.4.1 CAR and the R2P
4.5 Syria
4.6 Burundi
4.7 Yemen
5 Praise for R2P
6 Criticism of R2P
6.1 Infringement of national sovereignty
6.2 Libya, 2011
6.3 Syria, 2011: Russian and Chinese repudiation of abuse of R2P
6.4 Military intervention
6.5 Structural Problems
7 See also
8 Further reading
9 References
9.1 Sources
10 External links
The Responsibility to Protect is a political commitment unanimously adopted by all members of the United Nations
General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit and articulated in paragraphs 138-139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document:
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including
their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in
accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to
exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
Definition
3. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 3/23
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use
appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of
the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,
through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis
and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be
inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue
consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and
international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build
capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
140. We fully support the mission of the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of
Genocide.
The above paragraphs in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document serve as the basis for the inter-governmental
agreement to the Responsibility to Protect. The General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
in its resolution 60/1 of 2005.[24] The body subsequently committed to continue consideration of the Responsibility to
Protect with its Resolution A/Res/63/308 of October 2009.[25] The UN Security Council first reaffirmed the
Responsibility to Protect in Resolution 1674 (2006) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, recalling in particular
paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Summit Outcome regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[26]
The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which first articulated the
Responsibility to Protect in its December 2001 Report, envisioned a wide scope of application in its articulation of the
principle, which included "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either
unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened."[5]
Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit refined the scope of the Responsibility to Protect to the four
crimes mentioned in paragraphs 138 and 139, namely genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity, which are commonly referred to as 'atrocity crimes' or 'mass atrocity crimes'.[8]
As per the Secretary-General's 2009 Report on the Responsibility to Protect, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,
"The responsibility to protect applies, until Member States decide otherwise, only to the four specified crimes and
violations: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity...To try to extend it to cover other
calamities, such as HIV/AIDS, climate change or the response to natural disasters, would undermine the 2005
consensus and stretch the concept beyond recognition or operational utility."[27]
The focused scope is part of what the UN Secretary-General has termed a "narrow but deep approach" to the
Responsibility to Protect: A narrow application to four crimes, but a deep approach to response, employing the wide array
of prevention and protection instruments available to Member States, the United Nations system, regional and
The Scope of the Responsibility to Protect
4. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 4/23
subregional organizations and civil society.[27]
The Responsibility to Protect consists of three important and mutually-reinforcing pillars, as articulated in the 2009
Report of the Secretary-General on the issue, and which build off of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit
Outcome Document and the intergovernmental agreement to the principle:
1. Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state;
2. Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building;
3. Pillar III: Timely and decisive response.[27]
As seen in the 2005 World Outcome Document the UN Member States unanimously agreed to uphold their Responsibility
to Protect. Pillar I being the protection responsibilities of the state, paragraph 138 (see definition) states “Each individual
state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity”. Under Pillar I many countries are able to uphold these principles of preventing mass atrocity crimes. As Pillar
II leads on to international assistance and capacity-building. The international community is sent to help populations in
need before further crises break out. States who may be willing but are either incapable or too weak to uphold their
responsibility now may receive international support as a result of R2P. Pillar III is to deliver a timely and decisive
response. This movement is a prevention method for mass atrocity crimes when a state fails to protect its populations. In
reference to paragraph 139 “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use
appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the [UN]
Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.[28][29]
According to the UN Secretary-General's 2012 report, the three pillars of the Responsibility to Protect are not sequential
and are of equal importance. "Without all three, the concept would be incomplete. All three pillars must be implemented
in a manner fully consistent with the purposes, principles, and provisions of the Charter."[13] The pillared approach is
intended to reinforce, not undermine state sovereignty. As per the 2009 report of the Secretary-General, "By helping
States to meet their core protection responsibilities, the responsibility to protect seeks to strengthen sovereignty, not
weaken it. It seeks to help States to succeed, not just to react when they fail."[27]
The Responsibility to Protect differs from humanitarian intervention in four important ways. First, humanitarian
intervention only refers to the use of military force, whereas R2P is first and foremost a preventive principle that
emphasizes a range of measures to stem the risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity
before the crimes are threatened or occur. The use of force may only carried out as a measure last resort, when all other
non-coercive measures have failed, and only when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.[30] This is in contrast to
the principle of 'humanitarian intervention', which allows for the use of force as a humanitarian imperative without the
authorization of such bodies like the Security Council.
The second point relates to the first. As a principle, the Responsibility to Protect is rooted firmly in existing international
law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[31]
Third, while humanitarian interventions have in the past been justified in the context of varying situations, R2P focuses
only on the four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The first three
crimes are clearly defined in international law and codified in the Rome Statute (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA
9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf) that established the International Criminal
Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
The Responsibility to Protect and 'Humanitarian Intervention'
5. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 5/23
Court. Ethnic cleansing is not a crime defined under international law, but has been defined by the UN as "a purposeful
policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of
another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas".[32]
Finally, while humanitarian intervention assumes a "right to intervene", the R2P is based on a "responsibility to
protect".[30] Humanitarian intervention and the R2P both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the
R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centered motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states
to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk.[33] In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the
essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of "control" and emphasising "responsibility" to one's own citizens and
the wider international community.[34]
The norm of the R2P was borne out of the international community's failure to respond to tragedies such as the Rwandan
Genocide in 1994 and the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. Kofi Annan, who was Assistant Secretary-General at the UN
Department for Peacekeeping Operations during the Rwandan genocide,[35] realized the international community's
failure to respond. In the wake of the Kosovo intervention, 1999, Annan insisted that traditional notions of sovereignty
had been redefined: “States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples”,[36] he said,
while U.S. President Bill Clinton cited human rights concerns in 46% of the hundreds of remarks that he made justifying
intervention in Kosovo. [37] In 2000, and in his capacity as UN Secretary-General, Annan wrote the report "We the
Peoples" on the role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, and in this report he posed the following question: "if
humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a
Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?"[38]
Many critics of the R2P's third pillar claim that R2P is a Western concept, but it was the African Union (AU) that
pioneered the concept that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in crisis situations if a state is
failing to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes.[39] In 2000, the AU incorporated the right to intervene in a
member state, as enshrined in Article 4(h) of its Constitutive Act, which declares "[t]he right of the Union to intervene in a
Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and
crimes against humanity".[40] The AU also adopted the Ezulwini Consensus in 2005, which welcomed R2P as a tool for
the prevention of mass atrocities.[41]
In September 2000, the Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty (ICISS) to answer Annan's question "if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on
sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights
that affect every precept of our common humanity?" In February 2001, at the third round table meeting of the ICISS in
London, Gareth Evans, Mohamed Sahnoun, and Michael Ignatieff suggested the phrase "responsibility to protect" as a
way to avoid the "right to intervene" or "obligation to intervene" doctrines and yet keep a degree of duty to act to resolve
humanitarian crises.[42]
History of the Responsibility to Protect
1990s: Origins
2000: African Union proposes a right to intervene
2000: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
6. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 6/23
In 2001, ICISS released a report titled "The Responsibility to Protect" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Repor
t.pdf). In a radical reformulation of the meaning of state sovereignty, the report argued that sovereignty entailed not only
rights but also responsibilities, specifically a state's responsibility to protect its people from major violations of human
rights. This idea rested on earlier work by Francis Deng and Roberta Cohen regarding internally displaced persons.[43]
Inspiration may also be attributed to Jan Eliasson, who in response to a questionnaire on internally displaced persons
distributed by Francis Deng, stated that assisting populations at risk within their own country was "basically a question of
striking a balance between sovereignty and solidarity with people in need."[44] The ICISS report further asserted that,
where a state was "unable or unwilling" to protect its people, the responsibility should shift to the international
community and "the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect." The ICISS argued
that any form of military intervention is "an exceptional and extraordinary measure", and, as such, to be justified it must
meet certain criteria, including:[45]
Just cause: There must be "serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur".
Right intention: The main intention of the military action must be to prevent human suffering.
Last resort: Every other measure besides military invention has to have already been taken into account. (This does
not mean that every measurement has to have been applied and been shown to fail, but that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that only military action would work in that situation.)
Proportional means: The military means must not exceed what is necessary "to secure the defined human
protection objective".
Reasonable prospects: The chance of success must be reasonably high, and it must be unlikely that the
consequences of the military intervention would be worse than the consequences without the intervention.
Right authority: The military action has to have been authorized by the Security Council.
As the ICISS report was released in 2001, right around the time of the Second Gulf War, many thought that would be the
end of this new norm. However, at the 2005 World Summit, where the largest number of heads of state and government in
the history of the UN convened, the R2P was unanimously adopted.[46] While the outcome was close to the ideas of the
ICISS report, there were some notable differences: the R2P would now only apply to mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing), rather than human rights violations; no mention was made of the
criteria of intervention (see above); and the UN Security Council was made the only body allowed to authorize
intervention. The paragraphs also stress the importance of regional organizations and the role they can play through
Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.
The results of this summit led to world leaders agreeing on holding each other accountable if they fail to uphold the new
responsibilities. Decidedly if one state fails to uphold their responsibility this is now where State Sovereignty may be
broken in order to protect people in danger of such crimes. First peaceful action is to be taken through humanitarian,
diplomatic, or other means. If these fail to resolve the matter, the international community should come together in a
“timely and decisive manner”. This shall all be worked on a case-by-case basis through the UN Security Council as well as
the UN Charter.[47]
2005 World Summit Outcome Document
Secretary-General's 2009 report
7. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 7/23
On 12 January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a report entitled Implementing the Responsibility to
Protect (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/implementing%20the%20rtop.pdf). The report was the first comprehensive
document from the UN Secretariat on the R2P, following Ban's stated commitment to turn the concept into policy. The
Secretary-General's report set the tone and the direction for the discussion on the subject at the UN. The report proposes
three-pillar approach to the R2P:
Pillar One stresses that states have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Pillar Two addresses the international community's commitment to help states build capacity to protect their
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and to help those under
stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Pillar Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to act in a timely and decisive way to prevent
and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when a state manifestly fails to
protect its populations.
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) is an international non-governmental organization that
conducts research and advocacy for the Responsibility to protect. The Centre is based at the Graduate Center, CUNY, New
York City with an office also located in Geneva.[48]
At the 2005 World Summit, UN member states included R2P in the Outcome Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and
139. These paragraphs gave final language to the scope of R2P. It applies to the four mass atrocities crimes only. It also
identifies to whom the R2P protocol applies; i.e., nations first, and regional and international communities second.
Paragraphs 138 and 139 state:
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including
their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in
accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to
exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use
appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of
the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,
through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis
and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be
inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue
consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
United Nations
8. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 8/23
international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build
capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and to assisting those under stress before crises and conflicts break out.[49]
Since then, the UN has been actively engaged with the development of the R2P. Several resolutions, reports, and debates
have emerged through the UN forum.
The Security Council has reaffirmed its commitment to the R2P in several resolutions. The first such resolution came in
April 2006, when the Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 in Resolution 1674 (https://w
ww.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1674(2006)), formalizing their support for the R2P. In 2009, the
Council again recognized states' primary responsibility to protect and reaffirmed paragraphs 138 and 139 in resolution
1894 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1894(2009)).
Additionally, the Security Council has mentioned the R2P in several country-specific resolutions:
Darfur: Resolution 1706 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1706(2006)) in 2006
Libya: Resolution 1970 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1970(2011)), Resolution
1973 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1973(2011)) in 2011, Resolution 2016 (http
s://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2016(2011)) in 2011, and Resolution 2040 (https://ww
w.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2040(2012)) in 2012
Côte d'Ivoire: Resolution 1975 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1975(2011)) in
2011
Yemen: Resolution 2014 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2014(2011)) in 2011
Mali: Resolution 2085 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2085(2012)) in 2012 and
Resolution 2100 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2100(2013)) in 2013
Sudan and South Sudan: Resolution 1996 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1996(20
11)) in 2011 and Resolution 2121 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2109(2013)) in
2013
In January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released UN Secretariat's first comprehensive report on the R2P,
called Implementing the Responsibility to Protect
(http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/implementing%20the%20rtop.pdf).[50] His report led to a debate in the General
Assembly in July 2009 and the first time since 2005 that the General Assembly had come together to discuss the R2P.
Ninety-four member states spoke. Most supported the R2P principle, although some important concerns were voiced.
They discussed how to implement the R2P in crisis situations around the world. The debate highlighted the need for
regional organizations like the African Union to play a strong role in implementing R2P; the need for stronger early
warning mechanisms in the UN; and the need to clarify the roles UN bodies would play in implementing R2P.[51][52]
One outcome of the debate was the first resolution referencing R2P adopted by the General Assembly. The Resolution
(A/RES/63/308) showed that the international community had not forgotten about the concept of the R2P and it decided
"to continue its consideration of the responsibility to protect".[53]
Security Council
Secretary-General reports
9. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 9/23
In subsequent years, the Secretary-General would release a new report, followed by another debate in the General
Assembly.
In 2010, the report was titled Early Warning, Assessment and the Responsibility to Protect (http://www.globalr2p.org/m
edia/files/2010_a64864.pdf). The informal interactive dialogue was held on 9 August 2010, with 49 member states, two
regional organizations, and two civil society organizations speaking at the event. The discussion had a resoundingly
positive tone, with virtually all of those that spoke stressing a need to prevent atrocities and agreeing that effective early
warning is a necessary condition for effective prevention and early action. Objections were expressed by a small number of
member states; namely Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and Venezuela.[54][55]
In 2011, the report analyzed The Role of Regional and Subregional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to
Protect (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2011_a65877.pdf). At the debate on 12 July 2011, statements were made
by 43 member states, three regional organizations, and four civil society representatives. The biggest challenge to R2P was
considered cooperation with, and support between, the UN and regional bodies in times of crisis. Member states
acknowledged the importance of resolving this challenge through the unique advantages regional organizations possess in
preventing and reacting to mass atrocities.[56][57]
In 2012, the focus was on Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/file
s/unsg-report_timely-and-decisive-response.pdf). The debate followed on 5 September 2012 saw interventions address
the third pillar of the R2P and the diversity of non-coercive and coercive measures available for a collective response to
mass atrocity crimes.[58]
In 2013, the Secretary-General focused on Responsibility to Protect: State responsibility and prevention (http://www.glo
balr2p.org/media/files/n1338693.pdf). The debate following the report was held on 11 September 2013. A panel of UN,
member state, and civil society experts delivered presentations, after which 68 member states, 1 regional organization, and
2 civil society organizations made statements.[59][60]
In 2004, following the genocidal violence in Rwanda and the Balkans, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Juan
E. Méndez as Special Adviser to fill critical gaps in the international system that allowed those tragedies to go unchecked.
In 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Francis M. Deng on a full-time basis at the level of Under-Secretary-
General. Around the same time, he also appointed Edward Luck as the Special Adviser who focuses on the R2P, on a part-
time basis at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.[61]
The Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect leads the conceptual, political, institutional, and operational
development of the R2P. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide acts as a catalyst to raise awareness of the
causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize
for appropriate action. The mandates of the two Special Advisers are distinct but complementary. The efforts of their
Office include alerting relevant actors to the risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity;
enhancing the capacity of the UN to prevent these crimes, including their incitement; and working with member states,
regional and sub-regional arrangements, and civil society to develop more effective means of response when they do
occur.[61]
Both Special Advisers Deng and Luck ended their assignments with the Office in July 2012. On 17 July 2012, Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon appointed Adama Dieng of Senegal as his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.[61] On 12
July 2013, Jennifer Welsh of Canada was appointed as the Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect.[62]
Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
10. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 10/23
From December 2007 to January 2008, Kenya was swept by a wave of ethnic violence triggered by a disputed presidential
election held on 27 December 2007. On 30 December 2007, Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner of the presidential
elections and was sworn in as president a couple of hours later. The announcement of the results triggered widespread and
systematic violence resulting in more than 1,000 deaths and the displacement of over 500,000 civilians. Clashes were
characterized by the ethnically targeted killings of people aligned with the two major political parties, the Orange
Democratic Movement (ODM) and the Party of National Unity (PNU).[63]
External intervention was almost immediate. French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner made an
appeal to the UN Security Council in January 2008 to react "in the name of the responsibility to protect" before Kenya
plunged into a deadly ethnic conflict. On 31 December 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement
expressing concern for the ongoing violence and calling for the population to remain calm and for Kenyan security forces
to show restraint. On 10 January 2008, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was accepted by both the ODM and the
PNU as the African Union Chief Mediator. Mediation efforts led to the signing of a power-sharing agreement on 28
February 2008. The agreement established Mwai Kibaki as President and Raila Odinga as Prime Minister, as well as the
creation of three commissions: the Commission of Inquiry on Post-Election Violence (CIPEV); the Truth, Justice and
Reconciliation Commission; and the Independent Review Commission on the General Elections. This rapid and
coordinated reaction by the international community was praised by Human Rights Watch as "a model of diplomatic
action under the 'Responsibility to Protect' principles".[64]
On 30 March 2011, in response to the escalating post-election violence against the population of Ivory Coast in late 2010
and early 2011, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1975 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.a
sp?symbol=S/RES/1975(2011)) condemning the gross human rights violations committed by supporters of both ex-
President Laurent Gbagbo and President Ouattara. The resolution cited "the primary responsibility of each State to protect
civilians", called for the immediate transfer of power to President Ouattara, the victor in the elections, and reaffirmed that
the United Nations Operation in Ivory Coast (UNOCI) could use "all necessary means to protect life and property." On 4
April 2011, in an effort to protect the people of Ivory Coast from further atrocities, UNOCI began a military operation,[65]
and President Gbagbo's hold on power ended on 11 April when he was arrested by President Ouattara's forces. In
November 2011, President Gbagbo was transferred to the International Criminal Court to face charges of crimes against
humanity as an "indirect co-perpetrator" of murder, rape, persecution, and other inhumane acts.[66] On 26 July 2012, the
Council adopted resolution 2062 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2062(2012))
renewing the mandate of UNOCI until 31 July 2013.
Libya was the first case where the Security Council authorized a military intervention citing the R2P. Following
widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population by the Libyan regime, and language used by Muammar
Gaddafi that reminded the international community of the genocide in Rwanda, the Security Council unanimously
adopted resolution 1970 on 26 February 2011, making explicit reference to the R2P. Deploring what it called "the gross
and systematic violation of human rights" in strife-torn Libya, the Security Council demanded an end to the violence,
In practice
Kenya 2007/2008
Ivory Coast 2011
Libya 2011
11. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 11/23
"recalling the Libyan authorities' responsibility to protect its population", and
imposed a series of international sanctions. The Council also decided to refer
the situation to the International Criminal Court.
In resolution 1973, adopted on 17 March 2011, the Security Council
demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to ongoing
attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute "crimes against
humanity". The Council authorized member states to take "all necessary
measures" to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, while
excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan
territory. A few days later, acting on the resolution, NATO planes started
striking at Gaddafi's forces.[67] NATO subsequently came under scrutiny for
its behavior during the air strikes; concerns included the fact that the
intervention quickly moved to regime-change and that there were allegations regarding aerial bombardments that may
have caused civilian casualties.[68]
In December 2012, a loose rebel coalition named the Séléka initiated a military campaign to overthrow the government of
the Central African Republic (CAR) and its then-president, Francois Bozizé. The Séléka, composed mostly of factions of
armed groups in the northeast of the state, accused Bozizé's government of neglecting their region. They rapidly captured
several strategic towns and were poised to take the capital city of Bangui. A hasty intervention by Chad and the Economic
Community of Central African States (ECCAS) persuaded the Séléka to negotiate with Bozizé's government. The result, the
Libreville Agreement of January 2013, installed a three-year power-sharing arrangement.[69]
However, ECCAS failed to monitor the implementation of the Libreville Agreement and Bozizé did not undertake any of
the reforms necessary under the transition agreement. Séléka resurged and took control of Bangui and fifteen of CAR's
sixteen provinces on 24 March 2013. Séléka's leader, Michel Djotodia, proclaimed himself President, set up the National
Transitional Council (NTC), and suspended CAR's constitution. A hurried ECCAS summit on 4 April 2013, which did not
yet recognize Djotodia as President, called for the creation of a Transitional National Council (TNC), which would create a
new constitution, conduct elections in eighteen months, and select an interim President. On 13 April, the TNC chose the
sole candidate vying for interim president position, Michel Djotodia.[69]
From December 2012 onward, Séléka forces, who are predominantly Muslim, committed grave human rights abuses
against civilians throughout the country and especially targeted the majority Christian population. In response, Christian
civilians formed "anti-balaka" ("anti-machete") militias, which have conducted vicious reprisals against Muslims.
Extrajudicial killings of Muslim and Christian civilians have been carried out, including "door to door" searches by rival
militias and mobs seeking potential victims.[70]
The situation in CAR rapidly deteriorated after 5 December 2013, after an attack in Bangui by anti-balaka militias and
loyalists of ousted President François Bozizé. The attack against former Séléka rebels sparked widespread violence
throughout the capital as well as in Ouham province in the northwest. The violence marked a significant escalation of the
conflict in CAR. Anti-balaka forces launched another attack against Muslim neighborhoods of Bangui on 20 December,
spurring a cycle of renewed violence that led to at least 71 deaths by 24 December. A mass grave of at least 30 people who
were reportedly executed and exhibited signs of torture was discovered on 25 December. The UN Office for the
President Barack Obama speaking
on the military intervention in Libya
at the National Defense University.
Central African Republic (CAR) 2013
12. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 12/23
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates a further 40 civilians were killed on 25 December as violence
continued between anti-balaka and ex-Séléka forces. Eight African Union (AU) peacekeepers were also killed between 25
and 26 December.[71]
According to OCHA, by September 2013 there were almost 400,000 internally displaced people and about 65,000 new
refugees in neighbouring countries. Humanitarian agencies have alerted public opinion to the critical situation, stressing
that 2.3 million CAR citizens (half the population) are in need of humanitarian assistance.[72]
The crisis in the CAR is a case for the R2P, due to mass atrocity crimes being committed by both sides.[73] During a
Security Council briefing on 25 November, UN Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said that the world faced "a
profoundly important test of international solidarity and of our responsibility to protect" in CAR. The Security Council
passed Resolution 2127 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2127(2013)) on 5 December,
emphasizing that the NTC has the primary responsibility to protect the civilian population in CAR. The resolution granted
a Chapter VII mandate to AU and French forces to protect civilians and restore security, imposed an arms embargo, and
established a UN Commission of Inquiry.[71]
In the beginning, the international response to the coup was purely diplomatic: members of the International Contact
Group insisted that Michel Djotodia respect the principles set out in the Libreville agreement. The African Union was the
first to react when it announced a new African-led International Support Mission for CAR (MISCA) in July 2013.
However, MISCA has not been effective in reversing the deteriorating security situation. Although its mandate is well-
defined, there is general agreement that it does not have the resources to fulfill its mission. The UN General Assembly put
CAR on the international agenda in September. Resolution 2121 (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbo
l=S/RES/2121(2013)), adopted on 10 October 2013 and sponsored by France, strengthened and broadened the mandate of
the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA). Aware that MISCA alone is unable to
adequately tackle the growing insecurity, France has changed its initial position from disengagement to military
contribution, as announced by François Hollande on 20 November 2013, who said that French forces would be reinforced
by almost 1,000 troops for a six-month period.[72] France began to deploy troops in CAR after receiving authorization
from the Security Council on 5 December 2013 with Resolution 2127, which authorizes MISCA and French forces to take
"all necessary measures" to protect civilians and restore security in CAR. French soldiers immediately began to patrol in
Bangui.[71]
On 7 February 2014, it was reported that the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said that she
had "opened a preliminary investigation into possible war crimes in the Central African Republic".[74]
Over the last five years, Syria has been in constant conflict, which has led to the death of over 270,000 people, 4.8 million
refugees, and over 6.6 million internally displaced persons. To help stop these atrocities International Syria Support
Group (ISSG), the UN, European Union and the league of Arab states as well as other countries, had agreed to meet to
discuss the situation at stake. The conclusion was made that the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution
2254, which increased the delivery of humanitarian aid, as well as a nationwide cessation of hostilities, was required in
order to help those in need. Syrian government while working with allied militias has committed large-scale massacres,
perpetrated war crimes and gross violations of international humanitarian law, as a matter of state policy. After Syria’s
Commission of Inquiry's third report had stated that the government had committed the crimes against humanity through
extermination, murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, imprisonment and enforced disappearance and
CAR and the R2P
Syria
13. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 13/23
other inhuman acts. Due to this statement the UN Human Rights Council has adopted at least 16 different resolutions with
regard to the atrocities taking place in Syria. Despite all efforts and resolutions adopted to help uphold Right To Protect,
humanitarian aid has had limited success in reaching the affected populations. The Syrian government is responsible for
the well being of its people.[75]
The country of Burundi is at grave risk for a possible civil war, if violence is not stopped. The civilians of Burundi face the
serious and eminent risk of mass atrocities due to the ongoing political violence that threatens the stability of Burundi.
The citizens of Burundi are being harmed through mass atrocity crimes due to targeted killings, widespread violations and
abuses of human rights. Violence had increased after President Pierre Nkurnziza had announced he was seeking a third
term in the country’s elections. Violence had increased due to President Nkurnziza instructing his citizens to disarm or
face action by Burundian Security forces and be labeled enemies of the nation. Office of high commissioner for human
rights reports cases of sexual violence by security forces, hate speech and incitement to violence by some government
officials. In order for this country to become stable again it is crucial for the country to uphold its R2P, as well as make
peace-building gains.[76]
With the current armed conflict in Yemen, many civilians are left to face mass atrocity crimes. These crimes are a result of
the violence between pro-government forces and regional military as the fight against the Houthi rebels. The Houthi
rebels and pro-Saleh currently control a majority of Yemen, including the capital Sana’a. In addition to the violence
between these groups the nation also been seeing Saudi-led air strikes for months. This has resulted in over 3,200 civilian
deaths since March 2015. The violence has also led to 2.4 million Yemeni civilians being forcibly displaced leaving 82
percent, equivalent to 21.2 million of its people requiring humanitarian assistance. Without exception of the government
allied forces, the nation has also seen civilian infrastructure and humanitarian workers being targeted. All of the violence
being displayed has led to many other armed groups taking advantage of the unsettlement of the nation. With this being
said Yemen is currently unable to uphold its responsibility to protect and is in need of other member states support.[77]
Anne-Marie Slaughter from Princeton University has called R2P "the most important shift in our conception of
sovereignty since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648."[78]
Louise Arbour from the International Crisis Group said that "The responsibility to protect is the most important and
imaginative doctrine to emerge on the international scene for decades."[79]
Francis Deng, former UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, stated that "R2P is one of the most powerful and
promising innovations on the international scene."[79]
Political scientist Alex Bellamy argues (i) that there is evidence of behavioral change in the way international society
responds to mass killing and (ii) that R2P considerations have influenced behavior.[80] On the first point, Bellamy argues
that criticism of R2P as insufficient change is driven by a small subset of cases (Darfur, Libya and Syria) that are not
indicative of strong trends. On the second point, Bellamy finds that R2P language is used in UNSC deliberations and in the
rhetoric of world leaders.
Burundi
Yemen
Praise for R2P
Criticism of R2P
14. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 14/23
R2P and certain implementations of it have come under criticism by some states and individuals.
One of the main concerns surrounding R2P is that it infringes upon national sovereignty.[81] This concern is rebutted by
the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. According to the first pillar
of R2P, the state has the responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing, and according
to the second pillar the international community has the responsibility to help states fulfill their responsibility. Advocates
of R2P claim that the only occasions where the international community will intervene in a state without its consent is
when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the state is no longer
upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign. In this sense, R2P can be understood as reinforcing sovereignty.[82] In 2004,
the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, endorsed the emerging
norm of R2P, stating that there is a collective international responsibility "...exercisable by the Security Council
authorizing military intervention as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing,
and serious violations of humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to
prevent."[67]
On March 19, 2011, the Security Council approved Resolution 1973, which reiterated the responsibility of the Libyan
authorities to protect the Libyan population. The UNSC resolution reaffirmed "that parties to armed conflicts bear the
primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians."[83] It demanded "an immediate
ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against
humanity'.... It imposed a ban on all flights in the country's airspace, a no-fly zone, and tightened sanctions on the Gadaffi
regime and its supporters."[83] The resolution passed, with 10 in favor, 0 against, and 5 abstentions. Two of the five
abstentions were China and Russia, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council.[83][84] The
subsequent military action by NATO resulted in mixed opinions. Detractors of the intervention believe that problems in
Libya are best resolved by Libyans.
India's UN Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri stated that "the Libyan case has already given R2P a bad name" and that "the
only aspect of the resolution of interest to them (international community) was use of all necessary means to bomb the
hell out of Libya". Puri also alleged that civilians had been supplied with arms and that the no-fly zone had been
implemented only selectively.[85]
Critics in the media also suggested that R2P-based intervention in Libya was used as a means to carry out regime-change,
extending and undermining the purpose of the doctrine. While the doctrine was initially invoked to protect against
government reprisals in rebel-held Benghazi, the resulting operation grew in scope to support the total overthrow of the
government. Critics feel this experience has yielded global skepticism concerning proposed UN intervention in Syria the
same year, putting the future of R2P in question. [86]
Several attempts were made by the U.S. government in the course of 2011 to 2013 to pass Security Council resolutions
invoking R2P to justify military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. These were vetoed by Russia and China. The Russian
and Chinese governments both issued statements to the effect that, in their opinion, R2P had been abused by the U.S. as a
Infringement of national sovereignty
Libya, 2011
Syria, 2011: Russian and Chinese repudiation of abuse of R2P
15. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 15/23
pretext for "regime change", more particularly in the case of Libya, and that as far as they were concerned they would be
extremely suspicious of any future Security Council resolutions invoking R2P, based on past experience. According to the
UN's own 4 October 2011 coverage of the meeting of the Security Council:
[Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin] was alarmed that compliance with Security Council resolutions in
Libya had been considered a model for future actions by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It
was important to see how that model had been implemented. The demand for a ceasefire had turned into a
civil war, the humanitarian, social and military consequences of which had spilled beyond Libya. The arms
embargo had turned into a naval blockade on west Libya. Such models should be excluded from global
practice.
[…] [China's UN Ambassador Li Baodong] hoped that the [Syrian] Government would follow through on
reform and a process of dialogue. The Council should encourage those objectives while respecting Syria's
sovereignty's [sic] and territorial integrity. Any action it took should contribute to peace and stability and
comply with the United Nations Charter principles of non-interference in internal affairs.[87]
The question of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P remains controversial.[88] Several states have argued
that R2P should not allow the international community to intervene militarily on states, because to do so is an
infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this is a necessary facet of R2P, and is necessary as a last resort to stop
mass atrocities. A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific criteria should be developed to
determine when the Security Council should authorize military intervention.[89]
Political scientist Roland Paris, a proponent of R2P, argues that several problems regarding usefulness and legitimacy
inherent to R2P make it vulnerable to criticism: "the more R2P is employed as a basis for military action, the more likely it
is to be discredited, but paradoxically, the same will hold true if R2P’s coercive tools go unused."[90] Paris lists the
following problems as inherent to R2P, making it difficult for proponents of R2P to defend R2P and emboldening
critics:[90]
The mixed-motives problem - The legitimacy of R2P rests upon its altruistic aim. However, states will often be
wary to engage in humanitarian intervention unless the intervention is partly rooted in self-interest. The appearance
that the intervention is not strictly altruistic consequently leads some to question its legitimacy.
The counterfactual problem - When R2P is successful, there will not be any clear-cut evidence of its success: a
mass atrocity that did not occur but would have occurred without intervention. Defenders of R2P consequently have
to rely on counterfactual arguments.
The conspicuous harm problem - While the benefits of the intervention will not be clearly visible, the
destructiveness and costs of the intervention will be visible. This makes it more difficult for proponents of the
intervention to defend the intervention. The destruction caused by the intervention also makes some question the
legitimacy of the intervention due to the stated purpose of preventing harm.
Military intervention
Structural Problems
16. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 16/23
The end-state problem - Humanitarian intervention is prone to expand the mission beyond simply averting mass
atrocities. When successful at averting mass atrocities, the intervenors will often be forced to take upon themselves
more expansive mandates to ensure that threatened populations will be safe after the intervenors leave.
The inconsistency problem - Due to the aforementioned problems, in addition to the belief that a particular military
action is likely to cause more harm than good, states may fail to act in situations where mass atrocities loom. The
failure to intervene in any and all situations where there is a risk of mass atrocities lead to charges of inconsistency.
Sovereignty
Human rights
Human security
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
United Nations
International Criminal Court
Rwandan Genocide
Srebrenica Genocide
Peacekeeping
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Orford, Anne. International Authority and Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge University Press. 2011.
Global Responsibility to Protect (http://www.brill.com/global-responsibility-protect)
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Judson, A. M. Where is R2P grounded in international law (http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/handle/10523/2279),
Otago University, 2012.
Baylis and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 394
Deng, Francis, Rothchild, Donald, et al. "Sovereignty as Responsibility Conflict Management in Africa". (Washington
DC: Brookings Institution Press, September 1996). c. 290pp.
Downes, Paul. Melville's Benito Cereno and Humanitarian Intervention South Atlantic Quarterly. 103.2–3.
Spring/Summer 2004, pp. 465–488.
Evans, Gareth. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All. (Washington DC:
Brookings Institution Press, September 2008)
Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun. "The Responsibility to Protect" Foreign Affairs. November/December 2002.
Hehir, Aidan. "The Responsibility to Protect: Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing?" International Relations. 24/2
2010.
Gallagher, Adrian. 'A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P', Global Responsibility to
Protect, vol. 4, no. 3, 2012, 334–357.
See also
Further reading
17. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 17/23
Köchler, Hans, Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics. Is the Revival of the Doctrine of
"Just War" Compatible with the International Rule of Law? (Studies in International Relations, XXVI.) Vienna:
International Progress Organization, 2001.
Axworthy, Lloyd; Rock, Allan (2009). "R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda". Global Responsibility to Protect. 1 (1):
54–69. doi:10.1163/187598409x405479 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F187598409x405479).
Bazirake, Joseph Besigye; Bukuluki, Paul (2015). "'A critical reflection on the conceptual and practical limitations of
the Responsibility to Protect'". The International Journal of Human Rights. 19 (8): 1017–1028.
doi:10.1080/13642987.2015.1082844 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13642987.2015.1082844).
Bellamy, Alex J (2006). "'Whither the Responsibility to Protect: Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World
Summit'". Ethics and International Affairs. 20 (2): 143–177. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00012.x (https://doi.or
g/10.1111%2Fj.1747-7093.2006.00012.x).
Bellamy, A. J. (2008). "'Conflict prevention and the responsibility to protect'". Global Governance. 14 (2): 135–156.
Bellamy, Alex J (2008). "'The Responsibility to Protect and the problem of military intervention'". International
Affairs. 84 (4): 615–639. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00729.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2346.2008.00
729.x).
Bellamy, A. J. (2009). "'Realizing the Responsibility to Protect'". International Studies Perspectives. 10 (2): 111–
128. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00365.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1528-3585.2009.00365.x).
Bellamy, Alex J. 2009. Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities, Cambridge: Polity.
Bellamy, A. J. (2010). "'The responsibility to protect and Australian foreign policy'". Australian Journal of
International Affairs. 64 (4): 432–448. doi:10.1080/10357710903544106 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10357710903
544106).
Bellamy, Alex J (2010). "The Responsibility to Protect: Five Years On". Ethics and International Affairs. 24 (2): 143–
169. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-7093.2010.00254.x).
Bellamy, Alex J. 2011. Global politics and the responsibility to protect: from words to deeds. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bellamy, Alex J.; Davies, Sara E. (2009). "'The Responsibility to Protect in the Asia-Pacific Region'". Security
Dialogue. 40 (6): 547–574. doi:10.1177/0967010609349907 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0967010609349907).
Breau, Susan C (2006). "The Impact of the Responsibility to Protect on Peacekeeping". Journal of Conflict &
Security Law. 11 (3): 429–64. doi:10.1093/jcsl/krl022 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjcsl%2Fkrl022).
Briggs, E. Donald, Walter C. Soderlund and Abdel Salam Sidahmed. 2010. The responsibility to protect in Darfur:
the Role of Mass Media. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Chandler, David. 2005. ‘The Responsibility to Protect: Imposing the Liberal Peace’. In Peace Operations and Global
Order, eds Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams. London: Routledge.
Chataway, Teresa (2007). "'Towards normative consensus on responsibility to protect'". Griffith Law Review. 16
(1): 193–224. doi:10.1080/10383441.2007.10854588 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10383441.2007.10854588).
Dallaire, Romeo (2005). "'The Responsibility to Protect'". New England Journal of Public Policy. 19: 2.
Contessi, Nicola P. "Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation: China’s stance on Darfur in the UN security
council." Security Dialogue 41, 3 (2010): 323-344.
Davies, Sara, Alex J. Bellamy and Luke Glanville. 2011. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law. Leiden
Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Doyle, Michael W (2011). "'International Ethics and the Responsibility to Protect'". International Studies Review. 13
(1): 72–84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00999.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2486.2010.00999.x).
18. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 18/23
Evans, Gareth (2004). "'When is it Right to Fight?'". Survival. 46 (3): 59–82. doi:10.1093/survival/46.3.59 (https://
doi.org/10.1093%2Fsurvival%2F46.3.59).
Evans, Gareth. 2004. ‘The Responsibility to Protect: Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention’. Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting, reprinted in American Society of International Law 98: 78-89.
Evans, G., The Responsibility to Protect: End Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All, Washington D.C.: Brookings
Institution, 2008
Evans, Gareth (2009). "'Russia, Georgia and the Responsibility to Protect'". Amsterdam Law Forum. 1 (2): 25–28.
Hunt, Charles T.; Bellamy, Alex J. (2011). "'Mainstreaming the Responsibility to Protect in Peace Operations'". Civil
Wars. 13 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/13698249.2011.555688 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13698249.2011.555688).
Ban, Ki-moon, The Role of Regional and Sub-Regional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,
A/65/877–S/2011/39, 28 June 2011.
Luck, Edward C., ‘The United Nations and the Responsibility to Protect’, Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief,
August 2008
Luck, Edward C (2011). "'The Responsibility to Protect: Growing Pains or Early Promise?'". Ethics & International
Affairs. 24 (4): 34.
Pattison, James. 2010. Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility To Protect. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Paley, Gregory R., 2005. The responsibility to protect: East, West and Southern African perspectives on preventing
and responding to humanitarian crises. Waterloo, Ontario: Project Ploughshares.
Pingeot, Lou and Wolfgang Obenland, 2014. In whose name? A critical view on the Responsibility to Protect (http://
www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/images/pdfs/In_whose_name_web.pdf). Bonn, Germany/New York: Global
Policy Forum/Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office.
Ramesh Thakur and William Malley. Theorising the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
ISBN 978-1-107-62194-7.
Teitt, Sarah (2011). "'The Responsibility to Protect and China's Peacekeeping Policy'". International Peacekeeping.
18 (3): 298–312. doi:10.1080/13533312.2011.563085 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13533312.2011.563085).
Thakur, Ramesh (2003). "'In defence of the responsibility to protect'". The International Journal of Human Rights.
7 (3): 160–178. doi:10.1080/13642980310001726196 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13642980310001726196).
Thakur, Ramesh (2005). "'A Shared Responsibility for a More Secure World'". Global Governance. 11 (3): 281–289.
Thakur, Ramesh Chandra. 2011. The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws, and the Use of Force in International
Politics. New York: Routledge.
Thakur, Ramesh. 2016. Review article: The Responsibility to Protect at 15. International Affairs. (https://www.chath
amhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/ia/inta92-2-10-thakur_0.pdf)
Voinov Kohler, Juliette and Richard H. Cooper. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect: the Global Moral Compact for
the 21st Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weiss, Thomas and Don Hubert. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background. Ottawa:
ICISS.
Weiss, Thomas G (2004). "'The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar
Era'". Security Dialogue. 35 (2): 135–153. doi:10.1177/0967010604044973 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09670106
04044973).
19. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 19/23
1. "Responsibility to Protect – Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide" (https://www.un.org/en/pr
eventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml). www.un.org. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
2. "About the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/about_r2p). www.globalr2p.org. Retrieved
2016-03-21.
3. "Mission Statement" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/index.shtml). United Nations: Office of the
special adviser on the prevention of genocide. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
4. "Sovereignty as Responsibility" (http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/1996/sovrnty). The Brookings
Institution. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
5. "The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty" (htt
p://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/iciss_report.pdf) (PDF). ICISS. December 2001.
6. http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/handle/10523/2279. (Judson 2012).
7. Hehir, Aidan; Cunliffe, Philip, ed. (2011), "Chapter 7, The responsibility to protect and international law" (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=k206yi2PlWUC&pg=PA84&dq=%227+The+responsibility+to+protect+and+international
+law%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZNULT-T6MOPi0QG-s4XRBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%227%20T
he%20responsibility%20to%20protect%20and%20international%20law%22&f=false), Critical Perspectives on the
Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory, Practice (https://books.google.com/books?id=k206yi2PlWUC), New
York, NY: Taylor and Francis e-Library, pp. 84–100, ISBN 0-203-83429-1
8. "Paragraphs 138-139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/wsod_
2005.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
9. "Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/res
ponsibility.shtml). www.un.org. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
10. "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General (2009)" (http://www.globalr2p.org/me
dia/files/implementing_the_responsibility_to_protect.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
11. "Early warning, assessment and the responsibility to protect: Report of the Secretary-General (2010)" (http://www.
globalr2p.org/media/files/2010_a64864.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
12. "The role of regional and sub-regional organizations in implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the
Secretary-General (2011)" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2011_a65877.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
13. "Responsibility to Protect: Timely and decisive response: Report of the Secretary-General (2012)" (http://www.glob
alr2p.org/media/files/unsg-report_timely-and-decisive-response.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
14. "Responsibility to protect: State responsibility and prevention (2013)" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/n1338
693.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
15. "Fulfilling our collective responsibility: international assistance and the responsibility to protect: Report of the
Secretary-General (2014)" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/sg-report-pillar-ii.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
16. "A vital and enduring commitment: implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the Secretary-General
(2015)" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/report-of-the-secretary-general-on-the-responsibility-to-protect.pdf)
(PDF). GCR2P.
17. "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480). Council on
Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
18. "R2P down but not out after Libya and Syria" (https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/gareth-evans/r2p-
down-but-not-out-after-libya-and-syria). openDemocracy. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
19. "Debating the Responsibility to Protect in Libya, Syria" (http://icrtopblog.org/2012/04/06/debating-the-responsibility
-to-protect-in-libya-syria/). ICRtoP Blog. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
20. Tutu, Desmond (2008-11-09). "Taking the responsibility to protect" (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/
19iht-edtutu.1.10186157.html). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331).
Retrieved 2016-03-21.
21. "The 'Responsibility to Protect' at 10" (http://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/29/r2p-at-10/). E-International Relations.
Retrieved 2016-03-21.
References
20. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 20/23
22. Brockmeier, Sarah; Stuenkel, Oliver; Tourinho, Marcos (2016-01-02). "The Impact of the Libya Intervention
Debates on Norms of Protection" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2015.1094029). Global Society. 30 (1):
113–133. doi:10.1080/13600826.2015.1094029 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13600826.2015.1094029). ISSN 1360-
0826 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1360-0826).
23. Jan Hessbruegge, Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law, Oxford University Press (2017),
Ch. 7, https://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Rights_and_Personal_Self_Defense_i.html?
id=_6muDQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
24. "UN General Assembly Resolution 60/1 (16 September 2005)" (https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
N05/487/60/PDF/N0548760.pdf?OpenElement) (PDF). UN. 24 October 2005.
25. "Resolution of the General Assembly 63/308: The responsibility to protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/u
nresolutiona63l80rev1.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P.
26. "UN Security Council Resolutions Referencing R2P: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.glob
alr2p.org/resources/335). www.globalr2p.org. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
27. "United Nations Official Document" (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677).
www.un.org. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
28. "The Responsibility to Protect - United Nations University" (http://unu.edu/publications/articles/responsibility-to-prot
ect-and-the-protection-of-civilians.html). unu.edu. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
29. "The Responsibility to Protect" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/Backgrounder%20R2P%2020
14.pdf) (PDF).
30. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/libyaandr2poccasionalpaper-1.pdf
31. "The Responsibility to Protect and International Law" (http://www.brill.com/responsibility-protect-and-international-l
aw). brill.com.
32. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/1994/674 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110514
200247/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F1994%2F674) 2011-05-14 at the Wayback
Machine.
33. GSDRC (2013). International legal frameworks for humanitarian action: Topic guide. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC,
University of Birmingham
34. Arbour, 2008; Evans, 2006–7
35. http://www.biography.com/people/kofi-annan-9185694
36. K. Annan, Two Concepts of Sovereignty, ECONOMIST, Sept. 18, 1999, at 49, 49;
http://www.economist.com/node/324795
37. N.Kerton-Johnson, JUSTIFYING AMERICA’S WARS: THE CONDUCT AND PRACTICE OF US MILITARY
INTERVENTION 63–64 (2011).
38. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan000923.pdf
39. http://www.nai.uu.se/publications/series/notes/978-91-7106-642-8.pdf
40. "Constitutive Acts of the African Union" (http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/key_oau/au_act.htm). Documents and
speeches. African Union Summit, South Africa 2002. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
41. "The common African position on the proposed reform of the United Nations: "The Ezulwini Consensus"" (http://we
bcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:knfeO7BmdKYJ:www.africa-union.org/News_Events/Calendar_of
_%2520Events/7th%2520extra%2520ordinary%2520session%2520ECL/Ext%2520EXCL2%2520VII%2520Report.d
oc+ezulwini+consensus&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari&redir_esc=&ei=BhwIT5CWG47jggeE9MWPAg).
Executive Council, 7th Extraordinary Session, March 7,8, 2005 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ext/EX.CL/2 (VII). African
Union. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
21. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 21/23
42. Haines, Steven; Kassimeris, George, ed. (2010), "Chapter 18, Humanitarian Intervention: Genocide, Crimes against
Humanity and the Use of Force" (https://books.google.com/books?id=gnxWaFyEE0QC&pg=PA307&dq=%22Human
itarian+Intervention:+Genocide,+Crimes+against+Humanity+and+the+Use+of+Force%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U18
OT5L-Gq230gGF9IG-Aw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Humanitarian%20Intervention%3A%20Genocid
e%2C%20Crimes%20against%20Humanity%20and%20the%20Use%20of%20Force%22&f=false), The Ashgate
research companion to modern warfare (https://books.google.com/books?id=gnxWaFyEE0QC), Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 307–329, ISBN 978-0-7546-7410-8
43. Roberta Cohen (25 March 2010). "Reconciling Responsibility to Protect with IDP Protection" (http://www.brookings.
edu/research/articles/2010/03/25-internal-displacement-cohen). The Brookings Institution.
44. Mooney, Erin (2010). "Something Old, Something New, Something Borrrowed...Something Blue? The Protection
Potential of a Marriage of Concepts between R2P and IDP Protection". Global Responsibility to Protect. 2: 74.
45. Evans, G (2006). "From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect". Wisconsin International Law
Journal. 3 (2): 710.
46. http://www.who.int/hiv/universalaccess2010/worldsummit.pdf
47. "The Responsibility to Protect" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/Backgrounder%20R2P%2020
14.pdf) (PDF).
48. "About Us" (https://www.hrw.org/node/75138). Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Retrieved
2015-01-21.
49. "2005 World Summit Outcome" (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop). Sixtieth session,
items 48 and 121 of the provisional agenda. A/60/L.1. United Nations General Assembly. articles 138–140, p. 31. 15
September 2005. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
50. "Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit, Implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the
Secretary-General. A/63/677" (http://globalr2p.org/pdf/SGR2PEng.pdf) (PDF). General distribution to the media.
United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-third session: Agenda items 44 and 107. January 12, 2009. Retrieved
2012-01-07.
51. "Implementing the responsibility to protect. The 2009 General Assembly Debate: An Assessment" (http://globalr2p.
org/media/pdf/GCR2P_General_Assembly_Debate_Assessment.pdf) (PDF). GCR2P Report. Global Centre for the
Responsibility to Protect, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. CUNY. August 2009. Retrieved
2012-01-07.
52. "Report on the General Assembly Plenary Debate on the Responsibility to Protect" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.or
g/ICRtoPGAdebate.pdf) (PDF). International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, New York, NY. September
15, 2009. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
53. "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 63/308. The responsibility to protect. A/RES/63/308" (http://globalr2
p.org/media/pdf/UNResolutionA63L.80Rev.1.pdf) (PDF). General distribution to the media. United Nations General
Assembly, Sixty-third session: Agenda items 44 and 107. October 7, 2009. Retrieved 2012-01-07. Decides to
continue its consideration of the responsibility to protect. 105th plenary meeting, September 14, 2009.
54. "UN General Assembly Informal Interactive Dialogue on "Early Warning, Assessment and the Responsibility to
Protect", 2010 : Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/342).
globalr2p.org.
55. "President of the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly" (https://www.un.org/ga/president/64/thematic/r2p.sht
ml). un.org.
56. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICRtoP%20Report%20on%20RIGO%20GA%20dialogue%20on%20RtoP%20FINAL(1
57. "Initiatives of the President of the 65th Session – General Assembly of the United Nations" (https://www.un.org/en/
ga/president/65/initiatives/RtoPdialogue.html). un.org.
58. "World Not Fulfilling 'Never Again' Vow, Secretary-General Tells" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga112
70.doc.htm). un.org.
59. "UN General Assembly Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect: State Responsibility and
Prevention, 2013: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/471).
globalr2p.org.
22. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 22/23
60. "Prevention at Core of Responsibility to Protect, Secretary-General Stresses" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/
2013/sgsm15269.doc.htm). un.org.
61. "Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/).
un.org.
62. "Secretary-General Appoints Jennifer Welsh of Canada Special Adviser" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/201
3/sga1424.doc.htm). un.org.
63. "The Crisis in Kenya" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-kenya). responsibilitytoprotect.org.
64. "Ballots to Bullets: Organized Political Violence and Kenya's Crisis of Governance: The Response of International
Actors" (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/kenya0308/10.htm). hrw.org.
65. "Presidential Elections. UNOCI Resources – United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire" (https://www.un.org/en/peac
ekeeping/missions/unoci/elections.shtml). un.org.
66. "Crisis in Côte d'Ivoire" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-ivory-coast).
responsibilitytoprotect.org.
67. "Background Information on the Responsibility to Protect — Outreach Programme on the Rwanda Genocide and the
United Nations" (https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml). un.org.
68. "Crisis in Libya" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-libya#violence).
responsibilitytoprotect.org.
69. "Crisis in CAR" (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-the-central-african-republic).
responsibilitytoprotect.org.
70. "Central African Republic: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/central
_african_republic). globalr2p.org.
71. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/car-timeline-22-jan-14.pdf
72. http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/central-africa/B096-central-african-republic-better-late-than-
never.pdf
73. "Central African Republic: Sectarian Atrocities Escalate – Human Rights Watch" (https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/1
2/18/central-african-republic-sectarian-atrocities-escalate). hrw.org.
74. "ICC opens CAR 'war crimes' preliminary investigation" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26089189). BBC
News.
75. "Populations at Risk: Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect" (http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/).
www.globalr2p.org. Retrieved 2016-04-25.
76. "Burundi" (http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/burundi). www.globalr2p.org. Retrieved 2016-04-25.
77. "Populations at Risk" (http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/yemen).
78. World Archipelago. "Macmillan" (http://us.macmillan.com/responsibilitytoprotect/RichardCooper). macmillan.com.
79. "Gareth Evans – The Responsibility to Protect" (http://gevans.org/r2pbook.html). gevans.org.
80. Bellamy, Alex J. (2015-06-01). "The Responsibility to Protect Turns Ten" (http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S08
92679415000052). Ethics & International Affairs. 29 (02): 161–185. doi:10.1017/S0892679415000052 (https://doi.
org/10.1017%2FS0892679415000052). ISSN 1747-7093 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1747-7093).
81. Moran, Rick; Horowitz, David, editor (March 28, 2011). "Libya and the Soros Doctrine" (http://frontpagemag.com/2
011/03/28/libya-and-the-soros-doctrine/). FrontPage Mag. Retrieved January 7, 2012.
82. Ban Ki-moon, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, p. 7-8
83. "Security Council Approves 'No-fly Zone' over Libya, authorizing 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians, by vote
of 10 in favour with 5 abstentions. (Includes the full text of resolution 1973)" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/doc
s/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution). Security Council SC/10200. United Nations, Department of Public
Information, News and Media Division, New York, NY. March 17, 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
84. "Libya: Nigeria votes in favour of no-fly resolution" (http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/03/libya-nigeria-votes-in-fa
vour-of-no-fly-resolution/). Vanguard (Nigeria). 18 March 2011.
85. "Selective Use of R2P to Secure Regime Change: India" (http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=752417).
86. "R2P, R.I.P" (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/r2p-rip.html). New York Times. 8 November 2011.
23. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 23/23
IPI's Edward C. Luck briefs UN General Assembly on R2P, 9 August 2010 (http://www.ipinst.org/news/general-anno
uncement/185-we-should-not-wait-for-the-bad-news-ed-luck-says-at-un-general-assembly-meeting.html)
Whose Responsibility to Protect? (http://mantlethought.org/roundtable/r2p), debate between four R2P
practitioners, October 2009.
Newt Gingrich and George J. Mitchell, Report Card from America: UN Reform (http://www.aei.org/publications/filte
r.all,pubID.23488/pub_detail.asp), International Herald Tribune, 28 November 2005 (American Enterprise Institute)
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (http://globalr2p.org/)
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/)
Asia-Pacific Centre for R2P (http://www.r2pasiapacific.org/)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Responsibility_to_protect&oldid=811616305"
This page was last edited on 22 November 2017, at 20:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
87. "Security Council Fails to Adopt Draft Resolution Condemning Syria's Crackdown" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/
docs/2011/sc10403.doc.htm). un.org.
88. Seybolt, Taylor B. (2007). Humanitarian military intervention: the conditions for success and failure (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=m1O1lcF2GqsC&pg=PA2&dq=%22The+concept+of+states'+responsibility+to+protect+civilia
ns+drew+sharp+reactions%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5s0IT6DSBIrX0QGr6rH3Cw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q
=%22The%20concept%20of%20states'%20responsibility%20to%20protect%20civilians%20drew%20sharp%20re
actions%22&f=false). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5.
89. "Responsibility to Protect: The 'Real' Debate on R2P – STWR – Share The World's Resources" (http://www.stwr.org/
the-un-people-politics/responsibility-to-protect-the-real-debate-on-r2p.html). stwr.org.
90. Paris, Roland (2014-12-09). "Is it possible to meet the 'Responsibility to Protect'?" (https://www.washingtonpost.co
m/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/09/is-it-possible-to-meet-the-responsibility-to-protect/). The Washington Post.
ISSN 0190-8286 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286). Retrieved 2016-04-23.
Sources
External links
24. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 1/23
Responsibility to protect
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member
states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity.[1][2]
The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a
responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations.[3][4][5] The principle is
based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to
sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[6][7]
The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early
warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians
from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests
solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.[8] The United Nations Secretary-
General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available
to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity
crimes.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the
principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for
example.[17][18][19][20][21][22] It has also been argued that commensurate with the responsibility to protect,
international law should also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect
themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a massive scale.[23]
1 Definition
1.1 The Scope of the Responsibility to Protect
1.2 Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
1.3 The Responsibility to Protect and 'Humanitarian Intervention'
2 History of the Responsibility to Protect
2.1 1990s: Origins
2.2 2000: African Union proposes a right to intervene
2.3 2000: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
2.4 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
2.5 Secretary-General's 2009 report
2.6 Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
3 United Nations
Contents
25. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 2/23
3.1 Security Council
3.2 Secretary-General reports
3.3 Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
4 In practice
4.1 Kenya 2007/2008
4.2 Ivory Coast 2011
4.3 Libya 2011
4.4 Central African Republic (CAR) 2013
4.4.1 CAR and the R2P
4.5 Syria
4.6 Burundi
4.7 Yemen
5 Praise for R2P
6 Criticism of R2P
6.1 Infringement of national sovereignty
6.2 Libya, 2011
6.3 Syria, 2011: Russian and Chinese repudiation of abuse of R2P
6.4 Military intervention
6.5 Structural Problems
7 See also
8 Further reading
9 References
9.1 Sources
10 External links
The Responsibility to Protect is a political commitment unanimously adopted by all members of the United Nations
General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit and articulated in paragraphs 138-139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document:
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including
their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in
accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to
exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
Definition
26. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 3/23
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use
appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of
the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,
through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis
and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be
inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue
consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and
international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build
capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
140. We fully support the mission of the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of
Genocide.
The above paragraphs in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document serve as the basis for the inter-governmental
agreement to the Responsibility to Protect. The General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
in its resolution 60/1 of 2005.[24] The body subsequently committed to continue consideration of the Responsibility to
Protect with its Resolution A/Res/63/308 of October 2009.[25] The UN Security Council first reaffirmed the
Responsibility to Protect in Resolution 1674 (2006) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, recalling in particular
paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Summit Outcome regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[26]
The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which first articulated the
Responsibility to Protect in its December 2001 Report, envisioned a wide scope of application in its articulation of the
principle, which included "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either
unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened."[5]
Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit refined the scope of the Responsibility to Protect to the four
crimes mentioned in paragraphs 138 and 139, namely genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity, which are commonly referred to as 'atrocity crimes' or 'mass atrocity crimes'.[8]
As per the Secretary-General's 2009 Report on the Responsibility to Protect, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,
"The responsibility to protect applies, until Member States decide otherwise, only to the four specified crimes and
violations: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity...To try to extend it to cover other
calamities, such as HIV/AIDS, climate change or the response to natural disasters, would undermine the 2005
consensus and stretch the concept beyond recognition or operational utility."[27]
The focused scope is part of what the UN Secretary-General has termed a "narrow but deep approach" to the
Responsibility to Protect: A narrow application to four crimes, but a deep approach to response, employing the wide array
of prevention and protection instruments available to Member States, the United Nations system, regional and
The Scope of the Responsibility to Protect
27. 12/4/2017 Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect 4/23
subregional organizations and civil society.[27]
The Responsibility to Protect consists of three important and mutually-reinforcing pillars, as articulated in the 2009
Report of the Secretary-General on the issue, and which build off of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit
Outcome Document and the intergovernmental agreement to the principle:
1. Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state;
2. Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building;
3. Pillar III: Timely and decisive response.[27]
As seen in the 2005 World Outcome Document the UN Member States unanimously agreed to uphold their Responsibility
to Protect. Pillar I being the protection responsibilities of the state, paragraph 138 (see definition) states “Each individual
state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity”. Under Pillar I many countries are able to uphold these principles of preventing mass atrocity crimes. As Pillar
II leads on to international assistance and capacity-building. The international community is sent to help populations in
need before further crises break out. States who may be willing but are either incapable or too weak to uphold their
responsibility now may receive international support as a result of R2P. Pillar III is to deliver a timely and decisive
response. This movement is a prevention method for mass atrocity crimes when a state fails to protect its populations. In
reference to paragraph 139 “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use
appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the [UN]
Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.[28][29]
According to the UN Secretary-General's 2012 report, the three pillars of the Responsibility to Protect are not sequential
and are of equal importance. "Without all three, the concept would be incomplete. All three pillars must be implemented
in a manner fully consistent with the purposes, principles, and provisions of the Charter."[13] The pillared approach is
intended to reinforce, not undermine state sovereignty. As per the 2009 report of the Secretary-General, "By helping
States to meet their core protection responsibilities, the responsibility to protect seeks to strengthen sovereignty, not
weaken it. It seeks to help States to succeed, not just to react when they fail."[27]
The Responsibility to Protect differs from humanitarian intervention in four important ways. First, humanitarian
intervention only refers to the use of military force, whereas R2P is first and foremost a preventive principle that
emphasizes a range of measures to stem the risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity
before the crimes are threatened or occur. The use of force may only carried out as a measure last resort, when all other
non-coercive measures have failed, and only when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.[30] This is in contrast to
the principle of 'humanitarian intervention', which allows for the use of force as a humanitarian imperative without the
authorization of such bodies like the Security Council.
The second point relates to the first. As a principle, the Responsibility to Protect is rooted firmly in existing international
law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[31]
Third, while humanitarian interventions have in the past been justified in the context of varying situations, R2P focuses
only on the four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The first three
crimes are clearly defined in international law and codified in the Rome Statute (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA
9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf) that established the International Criminal
Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
The Responsibility to Protect and 'Humanitarian Intervention'