R2P cleansing belongs primarily to the states

 

R2P
is described as an emerging international standard according to which the
protection of civilian population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity and ethnic cleansing belongs primarily to the states but under which
also, this responsibility belongs to the international community when a state
or government fails in its duty to protection against its own populations. R2P
expresses a commitment to a set of measures, such as prevention, response and
reconstruction, with particular emphasis on prevention.

As
for humanitarian intervention, which is a former version of R2P, is defined as a forceful
intervention by a state or group of states, including but not limited to
military force without the consent of the targeted state “in order to bring an
end to massive assaults on human rights that the territorial state is not able
or willing to stop.”(Francioni & Baker 2013: 3)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It is a bit of a new version
of humanitarian intervention, but it is formulated in such a way as to make it
compatible with the UN Charter, that is, ultimately leaving the Security
Council to decide whether or not to intervene.

 

 

According
to Francioni
& Baker (2013), three major events have
influenced the development of the notion of R2P: the Rwandan genocide in 1994
by the absence of the international community to intervene, the massacre at
Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995 in which the UN peacekeeping force UNPROFOR showed
its inability, and finally, the unauthorized and controversial intervention of
NATO in Kosovo in 1999.

 

As
a result, in 2001, a report from the International Commission on Intervention
and State Sovereignty (ICISS) called “The
Responsibility to Protect” encouraged governments to adopt these principles.
In September 2005, the international community, through UN Summit Declaration of
2005, recognized key elements of the Responsibility to Protect. Although not
all ICISS proposals were adopted at the 2005 United Nations World Summit,
Security Council Resolution 1674 in 2006, was a fundamental step in the process
of evolving the concept. (Bellamy 2009: 113)

 

 

Paragraphs
138, 139 and 140 of the outcome document make direct reference to the principle
of the responsibility to protect. It is based on three pillars:

 


The first pillar is the ongoing responsibility of the state to protect its
people, whether or not their nationals, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity, and any incitement to commit them.


The second pillar is the commitment of the international community to assist
States in fulfilling these obligations. It builds on the cooperation of Member
States, regional and sub-regional agreements, civil society and the private
sector, as well as on the institutional strengths and relative advantages of
the United Nations system. Prevention, building on the first and second
pillars, is critical to the success of a Responsibility to protect strategy;


The third pillar is the responsibility of Member States to take timely and
resolute collective action when a State clearly fails to protect itself.

Responsibility to protect, Humanitarian intervention and
Human rights: Lessons from Libya to Mali by Francesco Francioni and Christine
Bakker  

http://www.transworld-fp7.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TW_WP_15.pdf

 

Despite its noble outlook,
this paper agrees with Bellamy (2009:32) that R2P is a Trojan horse “used
by the powerful to legitimise their interference in the affairs of the weak” because it is a new version
of humanitarian intervention, but it is formulated in such a way as to make it
compatible with the UN Charter, that is, ultimately leaving the Security
Council to decide whether or not to intervene.

Accordingly, Bellamy (2009:112-123)
notes that the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) rejected
the ”so-called right” of humanitarian intervention in 2005, citing ”similarities”
between ”the new expression responsibility to protect and humanitarian
intervention” and therefore became a clear barrier to consensus regarding discussions
related to the concept.

Bellamy,
A (2009) “Realizing the Responsibility to Protect” International Studies
Perspectives, 10(2), 111-128.

In a move to sell R2P as a way to
“re-characterizing humanitarian intervention”, the UN’s High Level Panel
commissioned by the then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, made
recommendations about UN reform, in which he “advocated R2P in a chapter on ”collective
security and under the banner of  use of
force.” Despite this effort, the move reinforced the association between R2P
and humanitarian intervention. (Bellamy 2009)

In my opinion, there is no
great difference on the purely legal level compared to the previous situation.
The right of humanitarian intervention is an ideological concept, introduced by
the West, without any legal basis. This concept has been rejected by all
southern countries. The responsibility to protect is formulated in a manner
consistent with the principles of the United Nations, that is, the need for
prior authorization by the Security Council before any military intervention.
But, it is not really new, because before the introduction of the
responsibility to protect, the Security Council could already authorize an
intervention in case of genocide, for instance, as described in Chapter VII of
the UN charter). United Nations. Charter
of the United Nations