“Once, late United States (US) President Abraham Lincoln said that you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” – excerpt from a letter to the then Secretary of War Edward Stanton, 1864
Conflict is one of the common facts among humans from the origin of mankind. Crimes against humanity are committed by stakeholders in fierce conflicts. In such situations, the international community has a responsibility to ensure the protection of humanity. There are many concepts and theories which focus on conflicts and how and when the international community should interfere with the State. Among those concepts, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major pillar, more of a doctrine.
This doctrine reveals how the international community should interfere with a state if there is a threat for crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. Before the R2P was introduced to the world in 2005, there were United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations throughout the world and one such example is the 1993 Somalia Peacekeeping Operation. In the 1990s, atrocities happened and crimes made a huge discourse among scholars, global leaders, and governmental and non-governmental institutes which led to the focus on conflict studies and humanitarian law. As a result, the UN introduced the R2P in 2005 with the initiative of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. There are appreciations as well as negative criticisms from scholars on the R2P and here, in this article, the motive is to find out the succession of the R2P doctrine.
The setting of the R2P doctrine
Even though the R2P was introduced in 2005, there is a long history related to the introduction of the R2P. According to the Global Centre, the R2P is defined as “an international norm that seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” There are three pillars of the R2P process. Pillar one – each sovereign state has the responsibility to protect its territory; pillar two – the international community should assist sovereign States to protect the population; and pillar three – the international community should interfere with the protection of the population if the state fails to protect its population.
When analysing the background of the R2P doctrine, it goes back to the Westphalian treaties in 1648. These treaties marked the end of a protracted war for territorial borders among the European nations. Accordingly, there are four basic assumptions which discouraged aggressiveness among the Europeans. Namely, national self-determination, starting diplomatic relationships and solving problems through diplomacy, peaceful coexistence emerged as a norm among the states, and the balance of power and non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. The foundation of sovereignty emerged through Westphalian treaties. The R2P is a doctrine that is a justification to exceed the sovereignty of a state for the international community as a last resort when there is a threat of atrocity type crimes. Then, the Hague Conventions also related with the R2P doctrine. There are two treaties which were signed in 1899 and 1907 which established the norms and customs by identifying and pointing out the rules that nations should follow during hostilities. The Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949 after the Second World War which killed thousands of civilians and created mass destruction. Its fourth Geneva Convention identified how nations should protect civilian rights and cultures during a conflict as well as in post-conflict situations. Until the 1990s decade, the world order followed the principle policy of the Westphalian treaty, showing respect for the sovereignty of other states. However, some terrifying incidents that happened in this decade marked a huge black mark in humanity.
For example, the Rwandan genocide happened between two ethnic groups. the Hutus and Tutsis, which lasted for 100 days between April and July 1994. More than a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Even though there were UN Peacekeeping Forces deployed, they were unable to mitigate this genocide and the lack of coordination and lack of resources were some reasons for that failure. In the Srebrenica massacre on 6 April 1993, the UN Security Council (SC) passed Resolution 819 that guaranteed the protection of the Srebrenica town. Nonetheless, the Bosnian Serb soldiers attacked the security posts and captured the control of the town. Then, they killed more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males including boys.
Response from the international community against atrocity type crimes
The international community believed that they had a chance to mitigate these tragedies. This fact made a huge discourse and questioned how the international community should interfere with internal conflicts within states when there are threats to commit atrocity type crimes. Then, the R2P doctrine was exposed to the world by the UN in 2005. When implementing the R2P, there are a few facts to consider, namely, just cause, right intention, last resort, and proportional means.
The R2P was implemented during some conflicts after it was introduced. The Libyan conflict and the Syrian conflict are such examples. The implementation of the R2P is done mostly by UN Peacekeeping Forces. Currently, there are 11 peacekeeping missions done by the UN in Africa and the Middle East. These operations were not implemented under the R2P doctrine but there are features of the R2P doctrine within these operations. As an example, ensuring human rights, the mitigation of violence, and the continuation of the flow of humanitarian aid are some major objectives of peacekeeping missions.
Challenges and criticism
A few challenges can be identified according to the comments of the International Crisis Group. The conceptual challenge questions the scope of the practical implementation of the R2P doctrine and its limitations. When practically applying this doctrine, the limitations and boundaries might become unclear. For example, at what time should this be applied and how should it be terminated? Should this be applied at the last resort and if yes, how can the last resort be identified clearly? Another one is the institutional challenge as the R2P process is applied through a combination of institutions like the UN, the UN Peacekeeping Forces, the World Health Organisation, and the local security authorities. In the practical application, there might be some occurrences of disagreements and miscommunication among institutions. That affects the relationship between the institutes and the overall R2P process as well. Another challenge is the political challenge which focuses on global and regional power dynamics and the political order. Those power dynamics can also be affected by the R2P in practical application as an external factor. Under the cover of the R2P, there can be hidden political desires of some states as well. This challenge is a criticism of the R2P doctrine as well.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 criticised the R2P. According to that, the R2P was used as a tool which powerful nations used to accomplish their desires and agendas. The main example of this is the Libyan R2P intervention. Libya was the first incident in which the UN SC permitted the R2P doctrine for a military intervention. In February 2011, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation led alliance intervened to fight against atrocity type crimes done by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces and to protect civilians. However, according to the critics, the purpose of the intervention was hijacked into a ‘regime change’, to topple down the Gaddafi regime. Some argue that the R2P is a threat to the sovereignty of a state and that it transforms a national state into a powerless one.
Conclusion and recommendations
The argument on the R2P made by the NAM is not relevant for all the R2P operations. There is some truth about the Libya operation as it exceeded the limits of using proportional means. In Syria also the R2P was applied against Bashar al-Assad’s regime as the Assad regime used chemical weapons (US President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike against the Syrian Government in response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack). This Syrian intervention was also criticised with the same argument that Libya was criticised. However, there are many successful peacekeeping operations in the world which are relevant to the R2P. For example, the Central Republic of Africa, Mali and Haiti Peace Operations are renowned.
The argument of saying that the R2P is a threat to sovereignty is also baseless because the first pillar and second pillar of the R2P is to support the sovereign state to manage the internal issues. Only in the third pillar does the international community do their interventions. These challenges and criticisms are not only intrinsic characteristics of the R2P but also the practical application of many geopolitical doctrines. The conceptual challenge can be solved by a proper understanding of the three pillars. Then, the institutional challenge can also be solved by a process which is well-organised and planned. That will increase the mutual connectivity among the institutions. Third, politics is a hard one to mitigate practically but it is not impossible to overcome. All one needs to do is establish a transparent control and monitoring institution for the R2P which does not allow external political interference.
As recommendations, the following can be suggested: Strengthening domestic accountability where sovereign states can stop atrocity type crimes by themselves within the first two pillars of the R2P without moving to the third pillar; empowering civil society engagements by establishing and empowering civil society institutions on human rights, and conflict resolution which will increase and develop social awareness of human rights and related sectors; enhancing international and regional cooperation to create a good mutual understanding and interconnectedness among the states that will create norms, regulatory systems and transparency when doing international interventions; and the ‘just cause and right intention’ facts will be protected. Finally, it is important to mention that the R2P should be transparent and acceptable.
(The writer is a research intern at the Institute of National Security Studies, the Ministry of Defence. The opinions expressed are his own and not necessarily reflective of the Institute)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.