Download Free Debating The Future Of The Responsibility To Protect Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Debating The Future Of The Responsibility To Protect and write the review.

This study examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. In proposing a number of revisionist alternatives, Ercan proposes a way forward for R2P, particularly regarding its Second and Third Pillars. Despite the debate shifting from a right to intervene towards a responsibility to protect, the conceptual and systemic limitations imposed on R2P via its institutionalisation have hampered its ability to consolidate change.
This study examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. In proposing a number of revisionist alternatives, Ercan proposes a way forward for R2P, particularly regarding its Second and Third Pillars. Despite the debate shifting from a right to intervene towards a responsibility to protect, the conceptual and systemic limitations imposed on R2P via its institutionalisation have hampered its ability to consolidate change. In light of this, Ercan argues that R2P cannot make a positive contribution towards changing the international system without first being equipped with new powers.
This study examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. In proposing a number of revisionist alternatives, Ercan proposes a way forward for R2P, particularly regarding its Second and Third Pillars. Despite the debate shifting from a right to intervene towards a responsibility to protect, the conceptual and systemic limitations imposed on R2P via its institutionalisation have hampered its ability to consolidate change. In light of this, Ercan argues that R2P cannot make a positive contribution towards changing the international system without first being equipped with new powers.
"Never again!" the world has vowed time and again since the Holocaust. Yet genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other mass atrocity crimes continue to shock our consciences—from the killing fields of Cambodia to the machetes of Rwanda to the agony of Darfur. Gareth Evans has grappled with these issues firsthand. As Australian foreign minister, he was a key broker of the United Nations peace plan for Cambodia. As president of the International Crisis Group, he now works on the prevention and resolution of scores of conflicts and crises worldwide. The primary architect of and leading authority on the Responsibility to Protect ("R2P"), he shows here how this new international norm can once and for all prevent a return to the killing fields. The Responsibility to Protect captures a simple and powerful idea. The primary responsibility for protecting its own people from mass atrocity crimes lies with the state itself. State sovereignty implies responsibility, not a license to kill. But when a state is unwilling or unable to halt or avert such crimes, the wider international community then has a collective responsibility to take whatever action is necessary. R2P emphasizes preventive action above all. That includes assistance for states struggling to contain potential crises and for effective rebuilding after a crisis or conflict to tackle its underlying causes. R2P's primary tools are persuasion and support, not military or other coercion. But sometimes it is right to fight: faced with another Rwanda, the world cannot just stand by. R2P was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. But many misunderstandings persist about its scope and limits. And much remains to be done to solidify political support and to build institutional capacity. Evans shows, compellingly, how big a break R2P represents from the past, and how, with its acceptance in principle and effective application in practice, the promise of "Never
A series of humanitarian tragedies in the 1990s (Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Kosovo) demonstrated the international community's failure to protect civilians in the context of complex emergencies. They were the inspiration for two norms of protection, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Protection of Civilians (POC), both deeply rooted in the empathy that human beings have for the suffering of innocent people. Both norms have achieved high-level endorsement: R2P from the 2005 World Summit and its Outcome document (Art. 138-140) and POC from a series of Security Council resolutions. The two norms of protection were instrumental in adopting the Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (Libya) and 1975 (Cote d'Ivoire) in the year 2011. Both norms raise concerns of misinterpretation and misuse. They both are developing--sometimes in parallel, sometimes diverging, and sometimes converging--with varying degrees of institutionalization and acceptance. This process is likely to continue for some time, with successes and failures enhancing or retarding that development. This book engages in a profound comparative analysis of the two norms and aims to serve policymakers at different levels (national, regional, and UN), practitioners with protective roles (force commanders, military trainers, strategists, and humanitarian actors), academics and researchers (in international relations, law, political theory, and ethics), civil society, and R2P and POC advocates.
Responsibility to Protect: Research, bibliography, background. Supplementary volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
This book critically analyses the 2011 intervention in Libya arguing that the manner in which the intervention was sanctioned, prosecuted and justified has a number of troubling implications for the both the future of humanitarian intervention and international peace and security.
This volume explores in a novel and challenging way the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), initially adopted by the United Nations World Summit in 2005 following significant debate throughout the preceding decade. This work seeks to uncover whether this norm and its founding values have resonance and grounding within diverse cultures and within the experiences of societies that have directly been torn apart by mass atrocity crimes. The contributors to this collection analyze the responsibility to protect through multiple disciplines—philosophy, religion and spirituality, anthropology, and aesthetics in addition to international relations and law—to explore what light alternative perspectives outside of political science and international relations shed upon this emerging norm. In each case, the disciplinary analysis emanates from the global South and from scholars located within countries that experienced violent political upheaval. Hence, they draw upon not only theory but also the first-hand experience with conscience-shocking crimes. Their retrospective and prospective analyses could and should help shape the future implementation of R2P in accordance with insights from vastly different contexts. Offering a cutting edge contribution to thinking in the area, this is essential reading for all those with an interest in humanitarian intervention, peace and conflict studies, critical security studies and peacebuilding.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is intended to provide an effective framework for responding to crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It is a response to the many conscious-shocking cases where atrocities - on the worst scale - have occurred even during the post 1945 period when the United Nations was built to save us all from the scourge of genocide. The R2P concept accords to sovereign states and international institutions a responsibility to assist peoples who are at risk - or experiencing - the worst atrocities. R2P maintains that collective action should be taken by members of the United Nations to prevent or halt such gross violations of basic human rights. This Handbook, containing contributions from leading theorists, and practitioners (including former foreign ministers and special advisors), examines the progress that has been made in the last 10 years; it also looks forward to likely developments in the next decade.
Since its endorsement in the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005, the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) principle remains rather weakly defined in international law. However it has made some political and institutional progress within the United Nations (UN) system. Most recently, it has been applied in practice with regards to the military operation in Libya. On this note Member of the EuropeanParliament (MEP) Alexander Graf Lambsdorff opened the workshop and introduced the speakers. Jennifer Welsh, Professor of International Relations at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (Oxford University) gave the first presentation on 'Setting the scene - conceptual basis of the debate on R2P, developments and trends'. According to Jennifer Welsh, from a legal perspective thestatus of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document1 is not more than a political commitment. Thus it does not create any new legal obligations, but it reminds states of their existing legal obligation to protect their population under the existing mechanisms of international law. Moreover, the document makes clear that it is a UN responsibility and that it cannot be invoked outside the UN context. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains the main instance that can authorise the use of force. However, the case-by-case approach is maintained and there are thus no automatic triggers. Libya has revived long-standing concerns that R2P is merely a gloss on 'humanitarian intervention'. However, the principle has become a mainstay of international politics and continues to be invoked in a variety of situations (e.g. Resolution 19962 on Sudan and Resolution 20143 on Yemen). Recent action in Libya will shape future implementation of the principle. The Libyan case has thrown R2P back into the hands of the UNSC and reminded states that R2P can be coercive. It has shown a tendency for R2P to become linked to widespread violence and forceful regime changes. This makes it less likely that the UNSC will agree to similar kinds of measures to address imminent atrocity crimes in the near future. The application in Libya raises further questions about where force fits in the 3-pillar framework particularly regarding the accountability of agents that the UNSC transfers R2P to. How can the UNSC retain control over military operations once the intervention is authorised? Jennifer Welsh recommended that the search for non-military means to prevent should be reinvigorated and military organisations should be encouraged to think more carefully about how to 'protect responsibly'. The case of Libya has also shown the crucial role of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) for the implementation of R2P. Moreover, it has led to a strengthening of the position of regional organisations as key enablers of global action to mass atrocities. But which organisations matter (e.g. the League of Arab States4 or the African Union)? Finally she concluded that Resolution 19735 was not only significant because of the application of the R2P principle but also because of the inclusion of the International Criminal Court (ICC) referral. Future discussions on R2P should include the use of the ICC as a tool to R2P in a way that it was done in Libya.