Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect
Sovereignty is an idea that evolved alongside civilization. Countries developed a desire to be in charge of their own affairs. The League of Nations adopted legislation to ensure that larger countries respect the autonomy of their smaller counterparts. This autonomy grew to the point of being abused. This prompted major world leaders at the United Nations World Summit in September 2005 to adopt a doctrine requiring UN member states to protect their citizens from war crimes, atrocities against humanity, genocides, and ethnic cleansing. This adoption of this document was necessitated by the rising number of cases where the fundamental rights of the population are violated at the watch of the government.
The Emergence and Application of Responsibility to Protect
Humanitarian intervention became a necessary topic of discussion towards the end of the 20th century. This attention was drawn by the Rwandan Genocide and civil war of the Balkans in the 1990s (The UN 2017, n.p). The international community felt that its voice was suppressed by the tag of sovereignty. They could only intervene where the affected government invited them. This limited the ability of many powerful nations to intervene in the conflicts and salvage lives and property. Human rights were being grossly violated on large and small scales. This made many individuals question whether states had unconditional sovereignty or if there was need to allow the international community to intervene for humanitarian purposes.
In the Millennium Report released by Secretary-General Koffi Annan in 2000, the failures of the Security Council were recalled, especially in regard to Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Annan noted that violation of human rights could not receive any justification based on common humanity (The UN 2017, n.p). Therefore, it was almost unanimous that there was need to assault sovereignty in future in order to protect the general population. Therefore, Annan conceptualized humanitarian intervention as a role of the international community.
The Canadian Government set up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in December 2001. This commission was meant to analyze the issues raised by Annan. This commission coined the term "responsibility to protect." In its report, this commission noted that sovereignty does not only give the governments the right over its affairs but also the responsibility of ensuring that all the people within its borders are protected. The commission noted that states that fail to protect its people find themselves in that position either due to lack of political will or ability. The commission also noted that in case this happens, the international community should come in and take over the mandate (Doyle 2011, p. 74).
In 2004, Koffi Annan set up the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (The UN 2017, n.p). The key responsibility of this channel was to endorse the emerging norm of responsibility to protect. During its inauguration, Annan noted that there is international responsibility to protect human rights. The Security Council was supposed to come in as a measure of last resort. According to Annan's statement, the world had misunderstood the conception of Security Council by treating. This panel came up with a basic criterion to make the use of force by the UN Security Council legitimate. This means that the sovereign country was given enough time and discretion to show its willingness and ability to intervene in local conflicts. The Security Council was given the responsibility of reviewing the seriousness of the threat and coming up with the proportionality of response before it can apply its intervention.
Koffi Annan released the report "In Larger Freedom" in 2005 to commend on the approach proposed by the panel. He suggested that the criteria listed by the High-level Panel be followed by the Security Council when allowing for the use of force that goes against sovereignty. He noted that the council should look at the seriousness of the threat in question, proportionality of the force applied and the chances that it will restore the rule of law and justice. The United Nations World Summit was convened in September 2005. The members unanimously agreed that each state had the responsibility of ensuring that its population is protected from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (Pingeot and Obenland 2014, p. 20). These were noted as some of the most common incidents where human rights were grossly violated.
During the September 2005 summit, world leaders noted that failure of a state to meet these responsibilities meant that it was different to other states. Therefore, all the states have the collective responsibility of protecting humanity from any harm. However, it is important that the states use peaceful means to protect vulnerable populations. Diplomatic and humanitarian approaches were the initial interventions proposed by the member states at the summit. The heads of state also noted that it was the responsibility of the member states to ensure that they react in a decisive and timely manner. The United Nations Security Council would only come in with measures of last resort in accordance with the UN Charter (The UN 2017, n.p). Matters off human rights violation can only be handled on a case-by-case criterion. The rest of the countries in the world were tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that they cooperate with regional organizations where they deem appropriate. The neighbors of the state whose citizens' rights are at stake understand the conflict better than the rest of the world and are given the first mandate of intervening through humanitarian and diplomatic means.
In April 2006, the Security Council arrived at resolution 1674 that sought to ensure that the lives and property of civilians are protected during armed conflict. This resolution was meant to prepare the council for reaction in cases where all the initial interventions fail to bear fruit. Two months later, the council passed resolution 1706 that deployed United Nations peacekeeping troops to Sudan. Armed conflict around Darfur was having a negative effect on the wellbeing of the citizens (The UN 2017, n.p). Since the enforcement of this intervention, responsibility to protect has been applied widely in decisions made by the Security Council.
Responsibility to Protect: Pillars and Challenges
Responsibility to protect has been applied widely by the United Nations and its affiliated organs, especially the Security Council. It has been applied on various nations including South Sudan, Syria, Libya, C\u00f4te d'Ivoire, Yemen, and Central African Republic. This implementation has led to the release of numerous reports by the UN secretary generals. Most of these reports outline three pillars on which the principle of responsibility to protect is anchored (Zifcak 2012, p. 59).
The first is based on the ability of the state to carry out its primary responsibility of protecting its people from the effects of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The state has a responsibility of ensuring that individuals who incite others towards perpetrating these atrocities are reprimanded and legal action is taken against them. This pillar is key in enabling the state to enjoy sovereignty and immunity from external interference and aggression.
The second major pillar of R2P lies with the role of the international community in protecting the people against the mentioned atrocities. The international community must ensure that it encourages and supports states to fulfill their primary obligation of protecting their people. This second pillar is not based on force, but rather, cooperation between the international community and the affected states. The international community should focus on enhancing the willingness and ability of the relevant government to ensure that the rights and freedoms of its people are protected. The relevant stakeholders should focus on peaceful ways that can help the incumbent leaders to focus on ending the war, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, incitement and genocides where they have a negative effect on the wellbeing of the population.
The third pillar of the responsibility to protect lies with the international community. In regard to this pillar, key institutions and nations on the global scale should use the most applicable humanitarian and diplomatic strategies to protect civilians from atrocities that lead to violation of their rights. The international community can only proceed to this third pillar if the state fails to show either or both its ability and willingness to protect its people. If this happens, the UN Charter is applied to empower other nations to take collective actions to come in and fulfill the obligations of the failed regime (The UN 2017, n.p).
The Application of Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purpose
Since the adoption of responsibility to protect, the actions of the international community aimed at achieving its mandate has received different reactions from varying stakeholders. One of the key criticisms was on the poor ability of stakeholders to lead early warnings. This weakness was identified by Koffi Annan's report titled Early warning, assessment and the responsibility to protect. Poor coordination between major world powers has prevented the smooth flow of information for action by the stakeholders. Flexibility and balancing of responses has also been a key challenge where the interventions on simpler conflicts present a risk of making them develop into wars and even genocide (The UN 2017, n.p).
Regional and sub-regional blocs are not well accounted for in the three pillars outlined in the initial report released by Annan. In 2011, the UN went ahead to try and get the member nations to recognize the role that the immediate neighbors play in helping member countries realize their roles in mitigating on genocide, war crimes, ethical cleansing, and crimes against humanity. A report released in 2011 by Ban Ki-Moon, the then UN Secretary General, emphasized the need to enhance regional collaboration as an intermediate intervention to ensure that states adhere to their role of protecting their citizenry (The UN 2017, n.p).
The international community is likely to face problems identifying signs of danger. However, countries within regional collaborations have higher chances of identifying these risks. For instance, citizens who sense danger in their own countries seek refuge in the neighboring nations. Therefore, the United Nations has tasked its members with the responsibility of ensuring that they strengthen regional and sub-regional cooperation as one of the ways of preventing the necessity of military interventions (Bazirake and Bukuluki 2015, p. 1019).
Despite the efforts applied towards preventing military interventions, there have been scenarios where the international community has had to rely on the third pillar to protect the citizenry of various nations from human rights violations. This is where the respective national government is proven unwilling or incapable of protecting its own people. In 2011, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous decision to adopt resolution 1970 while making reference to the responsibility to protect. It recognized that Libya had failed its mandate of protecting its people and authorized the imposition of a combination of international sanctions. The council forbade any occupation of parts of Libya by foreign forces. NATO resorted to airstrikes on Libyan forces. The approach to conflict in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire in 2011 was different from that in Libya because the former involved actual invasion and occupation of the country by UN Operation in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire (UNOCI). The UN had authorized the use of all necessary means to ensure that life and property is protected. This led to the arrest and prosecution of President Gbagbo at the ICC (The UN 2017, n.p). Syria is one of the countries whose affairs have been extensively intervened by the international community in the 21st century. The conflict in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. These killings have been jointly perpetrated by the government, foreign nations, and rebel groups. The United Nations has advanced its mission in the country through Lakhdar Brahimi. Despite the insistence on diplomacy, the international community has come in to extend the suffering of the civilians (Zifcak 2012, p. 59). Foreign armies with little knowledge of the affairs of the country have been arbitrarily bombing residential areas leading to the loss of lives of civilians who they claim to protect. The international community may have good intentions when carrying out these actions. However, there has been a failure in identifying early warnings, finding information, and putting up flexible responses. There has also been a failure in the response of regional blocs, with the only active one being the League of Arab States that has set up joint initiatives with the UN. The proponents of responsibility to protect had good intentions when formulating the policy and its key pillars.
References
Bazirake, J.B. and Bukuluki, P., 2015. A critical reflection on the conceptual and practical limitations of the responsibility to protect. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(8), pp.1017-1028.
Doyle, M.W., 2011. International ethics and the responsibility to protect. International Studies Review, 13(1), pp.72-84.
Pingeot, L. and Obenland, W., 2014. In Whose Name?: A Critical View on the Responsibility to Protect; R2P. Global Policy Forum.
The United Nations. (2017). Background Information on the Responsibility to Protect. [Online] (updated 2012) Available at: [Accessed April 12, 2017]
Zifcak, S., 2012. The responsibility to protect after Libya and Syria. Melb. J. Int’l L., 13, p.59.
