Who's Online

We have 976 guests online

Popular

206 readings
Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has no legitimate international status. PDF Print E-mail
Justice News
Posted by Joan Russow
Saturday, 06 January 2018 11:51

Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has no legitimate international status.

Joan Russow- Global Compliance Research Project  2012

In August 2005, at the UN, a straw vote was taken about the position, of different negotiating groups, vis a vis R2P. Non Aligned Movement (NAM) representing 116 member states said “NO,R2P is a reincarnation of humanitarian intervention”. Most developing states had reservations about a doctrine  sanctioning intervention in a Sovereign state. Yet, in 2011, R2P was assumed to be a UN well-supported doctrine and used to justify the invasion of LIbya.

 


PROPER PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED
The Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect is a key doctrine that could undermine the objectives and principles stated in the Charter of the United Nations: objective- to prevent the scourge of war and principle- the sovereign equality of states. Given that the doctrine has military consequences, under UN rules, it should have had 2/3 support in a vote of the UN General Assembly. There was no official vote in the UN General Assembly and there appears to have not been and in depth discussion of the Doctrine in the UN General Assembly. There was, however, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty set up. This Commission was to determine whether or not there was support for R2P; it held several sessions in different parts of the world and then tabulated the results. The results of the sessions indicated that there were wide spread reservations about R2p; yet the final report "Way forward Report" glossed over these reservations. 
There was a discrepancy between the negative concerns in the session groups and the positive face on the final report.

POSITIONS OF GROUPS IN AUGUST 2005 IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE DEVELOPING STATES
In August, 2005, there was a straw vote to determine where the different negotiating groups stood on R2P. Enclosed is the poll:

Note that negotiating groups overlap. There are 194 member states in the United Nations

NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) NO R2P is a reincarnation of humanitarian intervention.

G77  representing 133 states said No Comment on R2P and  reaffirmed “the strict adherence to the principles of sovereignty and territorial”
 
African Group (Mauritania) No Comment on R2P

. CARICOM Unclear / No Welcomes “the opportunity to discuss concept further.”  Could give support for R2P if “necessary safeguards are put in place to ensure respect for the principles set forth in Charter and international law.” 
1. Antigua and Barbuda The Bahamas Barbados Belize Dominica Grenada Guyana Haiti Jamaica Montserrat Saint Lucia  St. Kitts and Nevis  St. Vincent and the Grenadines Suriname  Trinidad and Tobago

CARICOM ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

  1. Anguilla - 4 July 1999 Bermuda - 2 July 2003 British Virgin Islands - 2 July 1991 Cayman Islands - 15 May 2002  Turks and Caicos Islands - 2 July 1991

 

Of course JUSCANS (Japan,US Canada Australia and New Zealand) and  EU Supported R2P

It appears that there was no substantial discussion of  R2P in the interim between the above straw vote which indicated that most of the states were either against the use of R2P as a justification for intervention or in support of further clarification; and discussion., and the October 2005 World Summit.

2005 WORLD SUMMIT USED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT R2P IS ENDORSED BY THE UN

It is one thing to call upon states to be responsible to their citizens and another thing to justify an invasion.

In the 2005 document is the following wording

Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity
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.


It is a pledge,which should be implemented by the state that states took  but it is not an endorsement of the R2P doctrine which legitimized intervention in another state.  R2P was used to justify the intervention in Libya and presumed to be a well-supported UN doctrine. 


The World federalists have rephrased to suggest a duty to intervene

"The R2P principle enshrining the obligation of states to protect their citizens was adopted by the UN in 2005. It says that states have a responsibility to protect civilians. But when a government is unable or unwilling to do so, the international community assumes a duty to take action on behalf of civilians threatened with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or ethnic cleansing. " (Monique Cuillerier < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

 

 

Latest News