DP GLOBAL POLITICS UWC COSTA RICA

HUMANITARIAN
INTERVENTION
READING PACK

WWW.GLOPOIB.WORDPRESS.COM
CONTENTS

Introduction & Guiding Questions 3

Ten Surprising Facts about Humanitarian Intervention 4

Alex Bellamy, OUP

The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention 6

Council on Foreign Relations

The Responsibility to Protect: A Background Briefing 9

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

Not In Our Name: Why MSF Does Not Support the 'Responsibility to Protect' 14
Fabrice Weissman, Medecins sans frontieres

What Drives Public Support for Humanitarian Interventions? 21

Peace Science Digest

Afghanistan: Clear case of how humanitarian intervention can morph into military control 23
Tim Mawe & Vittorio Bufacchi, Irish Examiner

The Evolving Legitimacy of Humanitarian Interventions 25

Conor Foley, International Journal on Human Rights

R2P: An Idea Whose Time Never Comes 33

Catherine Renshaw, The Interpreter

PAGE 2
INTRODUCTION
humanitarian intervention is a key In particular, it is important that you are This resources collects relevant
topic within the peace and conflict able to assess and evaluate the strengths readings from a variety of perspectives
unit in the DP Global Politics course and weaknesses of arguments on both to help you develop your understanding
and it is essential that you are familiar sides of the debate regarding and, as you make use of them, you are
with not only the idea of humanitarian humanitarian intervention and R2P. As encouraged to reflect on the guiding
intervention but also the debates ever in Global Politics, nothing is black questions below as you prepare for the
surround both humanitarian and white and, with issues such as this, final exam.
intervention and the right to protect where a certain degree of morality
doctrine (R2P) that grew out of this enters into the equation, this is more You should also play close attention to
idea. true than ever. the date each reading was originally
published

GUIDING
QUESTIONS
What is the relationship between By what measures can the success of What role does morality play in the
humanitarian intervention and the humanitarian interventions be debate surrounding humanitarian
Global Politics course core concepts assessed? intervention?
such as sovereignty and legitimacy?
How does humanitarian intervention How is the concept of power
What different perspectives on fit within the wider context of global manifested in the debate surrounding
humanitarian intervention and R2P politics? humanitarian intervention?
can be identified? Why might
different political actors hold To what extent can humanitarian To what extent is the legal framework
different views? intervention be seen as benefiting underpinning R2P sufficient for
powerful states at the expense of less preventing mass atrocity crimes?
What role is played by different powerful states in the international Does it go far enough?
actors, such as the United Nations, in system?
the sphere of humanitarian
intervention?

PAGE 3
TEN SURPRISING FACTS ABOUT
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
ALEX BELLAMY, OUP (2016)

After the end of the Cold War, humanitarian In other cases, the Council refused to authorize
intervention – the use of military force to protect intervention because the relevant government was
populations from humanitarian emergencies without opposed to it (Kosovo), or insisted that it would only
the consent of the host state – emerged as one of the authorize intervention once consent was granted (as
hottest topics of international relations. in the case of East Timor).
As is usually the case in world politics, the actual
practice of humanitarian intervention is more 4. Humanitarian intervention is as likely to be
complex, than we might think. Sometimes, states conducted by non-Western states as it is by Western
traditionally thought to oppose intervention might states. There is a widespread view – that
support it, as with Pakistan over Bosnia and China humanitarian intervention is an action that Western
over Somalia. The reverse is also sometimes true – in countries carry out on non-Western, or post-
2011 Germany opted not to vote in favour of NATO- colonial, countries. However, this is not the case for
led intervention in Libya, whilst decades earlier, two reasons. Firstly, since the Second World War, as
Norway – a well known champion of humanitarianism many humanitarian interventions have been
– condemned Vietnam for its intervention which conducted by non-Western countries than by those
ended a genocide in Cambodia that had accounted in the West. These include India’s intervention in
for a quarter of that country’s population. Bangladesh, Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia,
So, when we think about humanitarian intervention Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda, and the ECOWAS
we need to be especially mindful of its ever-complex interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The US-led
politics. These ten surprising facts might help. intervention in Somalia comprised a significant non-
Western element acting under UN-command, and
1. Humanitarian intervention has a long history in the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011 included
both thought and practice. The question of whether states such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Qatar. Secondly,
it is legitimate to wage war to protect people in other Western interventions have tended to focus on states
countries from tyranny has a long history. The in, or near, the West itself – for example Kosovo,
earliest Just War thinkers, St. Augustine and St. Bosnia and Libya.
Thomas Aquinas, argued that ending tyranny in other
countries was a just cause for war. In the nineteenth 5. The African Union was the first international
century, European powers intervened in Greece to organization to codify a right of humanitarian
end Ottoman atrocities there. intervention. And it remains the only organization in
the world to do so. Article 4(h) of the African Union’s
2. Humanitarian intervention remains rare. We talk Constitutive Act gives the organization a right to
about humanitarian intervention much more intervene in the domestic affairs of its member states
frequently than we practice it. It is much more in situations involving genocide or mass atrocities.
common for humanitarian emergencies to end This right has not yet been exercised.
because those that caused it achieved what they
wanted (think of the decline of violence in Darfur 6. ECOWAS in West Africa was the first regional
after 2005 or the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in organization to launch a humanitarian intervention
2009), were defeated militarily by local actors (think without the authorization of the UN Security Council.
of the end of the Rwandan genocide), or were Nearly a decade before NATO got into the
deposed/persuaded to change course by internal humanitarian intervention business, ECOWAS – led
dissent. by Nigeria – intervened against Samuel Doe’s regime
in Liberia without UN authorization. The Security
3. Not until 2011 did the UN Security Council Council later passed a resolution ‘welcoming’ the
authorize the use of force against a recognized intervention.
government for humanitarian purposes. The UN
Security Council is mandated by the UN Charter to 7. The “United Nations Protection Force” did not have
authorize the use of force to maintain international a mandate to protect civilians. In response to the
peace and security. In the early 1990s, the Council wars of Yugoslavia’s dissolution, which began in 1991,
identified a range of humanitarian issues as threats the UN established a large peacekeeping mission
to the peace, but stopped short of authorizing force known as UNPROFOR – the UN Protection Force.
unless the recognized government granted consent
(as in the cases of Haiti and Rwanda in 1994), or it
judged that there was no government (as in Somalia).

PAGE 4
Yet, despite its name, UNPROFOR did not have a
mandate to protect anyone other than its own forces.
It was mandated to “deter attacks on safe areas” but
not to use force to defend them – something that the
people of Srebrenica discovered to their horror in
1995 when UN forces dissipated and left them to
their fate. More than 7,700 men and boys were
massacred by Bosnian Serb militia in the genocide
that followed.

8. Done well, humanitarian intervention save lives.

Calculating whether humanitarian intervention
works, or not, is difficult because it requires counter-
factual thinking. Research done independently by
Taylor Seybolt and Matthew Krain, and using
different data sets, suggests that when the
international community does not intervene, or when
outside powers intervene to support a warring party,
a civil war or episodes of mass killing tends to last
longer, and therefore leads to a higher death toll,
than situations where intervention occurs. Virginia
Page Fortna, meanwhile, has shown that long-term
interventions involving peacekeeping also seem to
reduce the likelihood of a war reigniting by a
significant margin.

9. The Responsibility to Protect tries to reframe how

the world responds to genocide and mass atrocities.
The Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, focuses on the
rights of populations to be protected from mass
atrocities. It says that when states manifestly fail to
protect their populations from mass atrocities, the
international community should take action, working
through the United Nations and employing powers
given to the Security Council by the UN Charter in
1945. R2P does not give states or regional
organizations a right to use force to protect
populations without authorization by the UN.

10. The UN Security Council regularly refers to the

Responsibility to Protect principle. Contrary to
popular belief, R2P is now widely used by the UN
Security Council. It has adopted more than 40
resolutions referring to the principle, including some
that specifically authorize UN peacekeepers in South
Sudan and Mali to help implement R2P. The Council
has referred to R2P in relation to crises in,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Yemen,
Libya, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Syria,
Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia,, and Burundi.

PAGE 5
THE DILEMMA OF HUMANITARIAN
INTERVENTION
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS(2013)

INTRODUCTION It sought to bridge these two concepts with the 2001

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report. A year later,
Syria’s widening civil war and the growing toll on the co-chairs of the commission, Gareth Evans of the
civilians have raised new debate about the International Crisis Group and Algerian diplomat
international community’s responsibility to mount a Mohamed Sahnoun, wrote in Foreign Affairs: "If the
humanitarian intervention by outside forces. But any international community is to respond to this
such efforts seem overshadowed by the Libya challenge, the whole debate must be turned on its
experience. In 2011 the UN Security Council invoked head. The issue must be reframed not as an argument
the "responsibility to protect" doctrine and adopted about the ’right to intervene’ but about the
Resolution 1973, endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya ’responsibility to protect.’"
and authorizing member states to "take all necessary
measures" to protect civilians under attack from The commission included environmental or natural
Muammar al-Qaddafi’s government. Western-led air disasters as possible events after which the
strikes ultimately ousted Qaddafi from power and international community could intervene if the state
prompted criticism from Security Council members failed in its responsibility to protect its population.
like Russia that the R2P doctrine was cover for a But in 2005, when the responsibility to protect
regime change strategy. Experts say such sentiments, doctrine was incorporated into a UN outcome
combined with concern about the way Libya’s document, environmental disasters had been
upheaval spilled over into the region, have given dropped as a reason for intervention. The document
pause to humanitarian interventions backed by did say it was every state’s responsibility to protect
regional or global bodies. its citizens from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, and crimes against humanity." If a state
RESONSIBILITY VS SOVEREIGNTY fails to do so, the document says, it then becomes the
responsibility of the international community to
The United Nations, formed in the aftermath of protect that state’s population in accordance with
World War II to promote peace and stability, Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII includes
recognizes the importance of sovereignty, especially use of military force by the international community
for newly independent nations or those seeking if peaceful measures prove inadequate. The UN
independence from colonizers. The UN Charter says: outcome document was unanimously adopted by all
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall member states but is not legally binding.
authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction The doctrine was hailed by international affairs
of any state." The principle does not rule out the specialists as a new dawn for peace and security. In a
application of enforcement measures in case of a 2007 Council Special Report, former CFR senior
threat to peace, a breach of peace, or acts of fellow Lee Feinstein wrote that the adoption of R2P
aggression on the part of the state. The Genocide was a watershed moment, "marking the end of a 350-
Convention of 1948 also overrode the year period in which the inviolability of borders and
nonintervention principle to lay down the the monopoly of force within one’s own borders were
commitment of the world community to prevent and sovereignty’s formal hallmarks."
punish. Yet inaction in response to the Rwanda
genocide in 1994 and failure to halt the 1995 Early Momentum
Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia highlight the
complexities of international responses to crimes Initially, the doctrine was most notably applied to
against humanity. mediate Kenya’s post-election violence in 2008,
which political scientist Ramesh Thakur refers to as
In 2000, the Canadian government and several other the "only successful R2P marker to date" (TOI).
actors announced the establishment of the Following the mass atrocity crimes spawned by the
International Commission on Intervention and State highly disputed election in Kenya, other nations
Sovereignty (ICISS) to address the challenge of the swiftly applied political and diplomatic pressure to
international community’s responsibility to act in the stop violence and encourage a political solution that
face of the gravest of human rights violations while resulted in a coalition government.
respecting the sovereignty of states.

PAGE 6
 But some rights activists and journalists who focus
Before being cited explicitly in 2011 in reference to on humanitarian affairs have said regime change
the situation in Libya, the Security Council invoked should sometimes be part of the process of
the R2P doctrine for the first time in its 2006 protecting populations. David Rieff, a journalist who
resolution expanding the UN mission in Darfur. specializes in humanitarian issues, wrote in the New
York Times Magazine in June 2008: "Use any
Some instances in the recent past have also euphemism you wish, but in the end these
suggested countries in Asia might be warming to interventions have to be about regime change if they
humanitarian aid intervention. In the 2004 Indian are to have any chance of accomplishing their stated
Ocean tsunami, one of the worst-hit areas was goal." In the wake of the 2011 crisis in Libya, following
Indonesia’s Aceh Province, where the government calls for regime change, Thakur also argued: "R2P is
had been fighting a secessionist movement for more not solely about military intervention but, if it is to
than four decades. The province, under martial law, have any meaning at all, must include that option as a
was off-limits for most international human rights last resort."
groups, aid organizations, and reporters. But after
initial hesitation, the Indonesian government allowed Russian officials have vowed to block further efforts
international aid in what Elizabeth Ferris and Lex at Security Council-endorsed interventions even
Rieffel of the Brookings Institution call "one of the amid humanitarian suffering. "The international
largest disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts community unfortunately did take sides in Libya and
in modern times," and also resulted in a "peace we would never allow the Security Council to
agreement, which led to the election of a former authorize anything similar to what happened in
secessionist leader as governor of the province." Libya," Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told
Australian TV in January 2012.
Similarly, after a powerful 2005 earthquake rocked Increasingly the intervention in Libya is becoming
the long-disputed Kashmir region dividing India and regarded as unique, and there appears to be less of
Pakistan, the Pakistani government decided to give an appetite for destroying the baseline order in
access to international relief agencies. In addition, an states, regardless of how odious a state may be, says
earthquake in China’s Sichuan Province in May 2008 Stewart M. Patrick, CFR senior fellow and director of
led Beijing to make unprecedented moves to open up. the program on international institutions and global
The Chinese government, which in the past has governance.
spurned foreign aid, accepted international aid
publicly, opened a hotline for the U.S. military to "Libya has exposed fissures within the international
have increased communication with its Chinese community and brought to the fore conflict not only
counterparts, and eased media restrictions. in the Security Council permanent members but also
among many developing countries that have long
Intervention and Regime Change been lukewarm about the concept" of R2P, Patrick
says.
Those who helped write the 2001 R2P report
emphasized that it embraced not just the An Uncertain Future
"responsibility to react" but the "responsibility to
prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" as well. Beyond operational and political questions, military
Evans and Sahnoun argued in Foreign Affairs: "Both intervention also involves legal issues, says CFR’s
of these dimensions have been much neglected in the Matthew Waxman. "Humanitarian/military
traditional humanitarian-intervention debate. intervention outside of a UN Security Council
Bringing them back to center stage should help make mandate remains a very highly contested area of
the concept of reaction itself more palatable." international law," he says. And Russia and China
have historically been reluctant to support any form
The 2005 UN document also emphasized prevention: of intervention. Besides their long-standing
"We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary noninterference policy in the internal affairs of other
and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to countries, they are "particularly worried that it could
protect their populations," the document said, "and create a precedent for the international community
to assisting those which are under stress before to have a say in how they treat their own, sometimes
crises and conflicts break out." restive, minority populations," says CFR’s Patrick.

PAGE 7
The willingness to use armed force is also inevitably
influenced not only by the desperation of the
affected population but also by geopolitical factors,
including the relevance of the country to the world
community, regional stability, and the attitudes of
other major players, say experts.

The U.S. role as standard bearer for the R2P concept

remains a question. It has been reluctant to commit
to a forceful intervention in Syria, limiting itself to
announced plans to arm the opposition and working
with Russia to try to convene a peace conference
bringing together the Assad regime and rebels. CFR’s
Waxman says the U.S. nation-building experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the on-the-
ground challenges faced after U.S.-led interventions.
"The United States has limited power to help put
these countries back together after regimes collapse
in ways that ensure that rights and safety of the local
populations are maintained," he says.

President Obama’s appointment in June 2013 of two

top officials who have been outspoken in the past on
humanitarian intervention--Susan Rice as national
security adviser and Samantha Power as UN
ambassador--prompted discussions about whether
he might be signaling willingness to intervene in
humanitarian crises. But a number of analysts have
cautioned against taking too simplistic a view about
the roles Rice and Power will play. "Both Rice and
Power have moderated their views on U.S. military
intervention abroad over the years, in large part
because of the backlash from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, preferring to resort to diplomatic
pressure, ’moral suasion,’ and other tools," writes the
National Journal’s Michael Hirsh.

At present, the world community has limited options

for responding to humanitarian crises. UN General
Assembly Resolution 46/182 formed guiding
principles for states’ response to humanitarian
disasters and was central to the establishment of the
office of the UN emergency relief coordinator and
the development of the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee.

But the General Assembly resolution reiterates that

"the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national
unity of States must be fully respected in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations," which makes
it difficult to operate in situations where the affected
country denies access. In such cases, the role of
regional actors and neighbors becomes critical.

PAGE 8
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT:A
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
GLOBAL CENTRE FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (2021)

WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept sought to
WHY DO WE NEED IT? confront both the Rwanda tragedy and the Kosovo
dilemma by stipulating that states have an obligation
The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 to to protect their citizens from mass atrocity crimes;
prevent conflicts between states. But with the end of that the international community will assist them in
the Cold War, inter-state aggression largely gave way doing so; and that, should the state be "manifestly
to war and violence within, rather than between, failing" in its obligations, the international
states. When, during the 1990s, horrific violence community is obliged to act.
broke out inside the borders of such countries as
Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the R2P seeks to ensure that the international
world was ill-prepared to act and was paralyzed by community never again fails to act in the face of
disagreement over the limits of national sovereignty. genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes
against humanity. By accepting a collective
Throughout the 1990s, the UN was deeply divided responsibility to protect, the international
between those who insisted on a right of community issued a solemn pledge that it cannot
humanitarian intervention and those who viewed lightly ignore.
such a doctrine as an indefensible infringement upon
national sovereignty. At the time Secretary-General WHAT FORMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE DOES
Kofi Annan warned that the UN risked discrediting R2P SEEK TO ADDRESS?
itself if it failed to respond to catastrophes such as
Rwanda and Srebrenica, and he challenged member The UN's 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
states to agree on a legal and political framework for explicitly limits the application of R2P to four types
collective international action. of mass atrocity crimes: genocide, ethnic cleansing,
war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In 1999 the failure of the UN Security Council (UNSC)
to authorize action to halt "ethnic cleansing" in R2P does not apply to other violations and abuses of
Kosovo provoked NATO to initiate an aerial human rights or grave threats to human security,
bombardment on its own. This deeply divided the whether from climate change, disease or many
international community, pitting those who harmful and ruinous state policies, such as the
denounced the intervention as illegal against others suspension of civil liberties, endemic poverty, or
who argued that legality mattered less than the moral mass corruption. Other human rights instruments,
imperative to save lives. This deadlock implied a pair legal frameworks and institutions are better suited to
of unpalatable choices: either states could passively address these pressing issues.
stand by and let mass killing happen in order to
strictly preserve the letter of international law, or WHAT IS A MASS ATROCITY CRIME?
they could circumvent the UN Charter and
unilaterally carry out an act of war on humanitarian R2P applies to four mass atrocity crimes: genocide,
grounds. war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic
cleansing. The first three crimes are legally defined in
The 2001 report of the International Commission on various international legal documents, such as the
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
formulated the alternative principle of "the of the Crime of Genocide, the 1949 Geneva
responsibility to protect," focusing not on the legal or Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, and
moral "right" of outsiders to intervene but on the the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal
responsibility of all states to protect people at risk. In Court (ICC). Their status as international crimes is
2005 the UN World Summit unanimously accepted based on the belief that the acts associated with
their "responsibility to protect populations from them affect the core dignity of human beings, both in
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes times of peace and in times of war.
against humanity."

PAGE 9
Genocide Other serious violations of the laws and customs,
such as:
Genocide means acts committed with intent to Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial population as such or against individual civilians
or religious group, including: not taking direct part in hostilities;
• Killing members of the group; Intentionally directing attacks against civilian
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members objects, that is, objects which are not military
of the group; objectives;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means,
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are
in whole or in part; undefended and which are not military objectives;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births Employing poison or poisoned weapons.
within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to War crimes in non-international armed conflicts
another group. include:

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven Serious violations of Article 3 common to the 1949
intent on the part of perpetrators to physically Geneva Conventions, such as:
destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Violence to life and person, in particular murder
Victims of this crime are deliberately targeted of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and
because of their real or perceived membership of one torture of persons taking no active part in the
of the four protected groups. Genocide can also be hostilities, including members of armed forces
committed against only a part of the group, as long as who have laid down their arms and those placed
that part is identifiable and “substantial.” hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention,
or any other cause against the sick, wounded and
War crimes shipwrecked persons not taking part in hostilities,
prisoners of war and other detainees, civilians
There is no single document in international law that and civilian objects.
codifies all war crimes. Lists of war crimes can be
found in both International Humanitarian Law (the Other serious violations of the laws and customs,
Hague and Geneva Conventions) and International such as:
Criminal Law treaties (the Rome Statute of the ICC),
as well as in international customary law. War crimes Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian
take place in the context of an armed conflict, either population as such or against individual civilians
international or non-international (such as a civil not taking direct part in hostilities;
war). o Intentionally directing attacks against buildings
dedicated to religion, education, art, science or
The Rome Statute makes a distinction between four charitable purposes, historic monuments,
categories of war crimes, depending on its character: hospitals and places where the sick and wounded
are collected, provided they are not military
War crimes in international armed conflicts include: objectives.

Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, By contrast to genocide and crimes against humanity,
such as: war crimes can be committed against either
Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, or combatants or non-combatants, depending upon the
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury type of crime. In international armed conflicts,
to body or health against the sick, wounded and victims include wounded and sick members of armed
shipwrecked persons not taking part in hostilities, forces in the field and at sea, prisoners of war and
prisoners of war and other detainees, civilians civilians. In the case of non-international armed
and civilian objects. conflicts, protection is afforded to persons taking no
Extensive destruction and appropriation of active part in the hostilities, including members of
property, not justified by military necessity and armed forces who have laid down their arms and
carried out unlawfully and wantonly those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds,
or detention. In both types of conflicts protection is
also afforded to medical and religious personnel,
humanitarian workers and civil defense staff.

PAGE 10
Crimes against humanity The Commission also stated that coercive practices
used to remove the civilian population can include:
Crimes against humanity have not yet been codified murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention,
in a separate treaty of international law, unlike extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults,
genocide and war crimes, although there are efforts severe physical injury to civilians, forcible removal,
to do so. The crime has, however, been clearly displacement and deportation of civilian population,
defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC. deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on
civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human
The crime against humanity means acts committed shields, destruction of property, and robbery of
as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed personal property, as well as attacks on hospitals,
against any civilian population, such as: medical personnel, and locations with the Red
Cross/Red Crescent emblem.
• Murder;
• Extermination; HOW DOES R2P WORK?
• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• Torture; At the heart of R2P is the principle that states must
• Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced act to prevent mass atrocity crimes and protect all
pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form populations from risks related to their occurrence.
of sexual violence of comparable gravity; When states lack the capacity to take such measures,
• The crime of apartheid; the international community has a responsibility to
• Other inhumane acts of a similar character provide assistance in doing so. Central is the idea
intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury that concerned outsiders should help states prevent
to body or to mental or physical health. these gross abuses through what the World Summit
Outcome Document characterizes as "diplomatic,
Crimes against humanity involve either large-scale humanitarian and other peaceful means." This
violence in relation to the number of victims or its includes strengthening state capacity through
extension over a broad geographic area (widespread), economic assistance, rule-of-law reform and the
or as part of a wider policy or plan (systematic). This building of inclusive political institutions or, when
excludes random, accidental or isolated acts of violence seems imminent, through direct mediation.
violence. The intense diplomatic engagement following the
disputed election in Kenya (2007) and the work of
Ethnic cleansing neighbors and the UN to support the government of
Burundi as it addressed ethnic conflict (1995-2005)
Ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an demonstrate cooperative efforts to prevent
independent crime under international law. The term atrocities.
surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the
former Yugoslavia and has been used in resolutions Only when such means have been clearly and
of the UNSC and General Assembly. Notably, the demonstrably unsuccessful should the international
term has also appeared in judgments and indictments community, acting through the UNSC, turn to
of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former coercive measures. These could include such
Yugoslavia, although it did not constitute one of the measures as sanctions, arms embargoes or the threat
counts for prosecution. to refer perpetrators to the ICC. Should peaceful
means be inadequate and the state be manifestly
A UN Commission of Experts mandated to look into failing or unwilling to protect its population, then-
violations of International Humanitarian Law and only then-would the UNSC consider use of
committed in the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic military force.
cleansing as “rendering an area ethnically
homogeneous by using force or intimidation to WHEN IS MILITARY FORCE JUSTIFIED?
remove persons of given groups from the area" and
as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or Timely military intervention could have halted the
religious group to remove by violent and terror- genocidal horror in Rwanda. The ICISS report and the
inspiring means the civilian population of another UN Secretary-General's In Larger Freedom document
ethnic or religious group from certain geographic proposed five "precautionary principles" or "criteria
areas.” of legitimacy" to help guide possible military action
under the UN Charter

PAGE 11
 1. Seriousness of harm. The threat of atrocities must R2P covers crimes occurring anywhere in the world,
be clear and extreme enough to justify military regardless of the status or prestige of the
force; perpetrator. Given that the more powerful states
2. Proper purpose. The central purpose of the have a far greater capacity to extend assistance – and
intervention must be to prevent or halt suffering; far greater economic, diplomatic, logistical and
3. Last resort. Military force must be the last resort military capacity – their responsibility to respond
with every reasonable non-military option having and react to mass atrocity crimes is arguably greater.
been explored; R2P is fundamentally about protecting the weak
4. Proportional means. The scale and duration of (those subjected to mass atrocity crimes) from
military action must be commensurate with the unconscionable abuse of power.
ends sought;
5. Balance of consequences. Is there a reasonable WHAT IS THE STANDING OF R2P IN
chance of success in averting the threat of INTERNATIONAL LAW?
atrocities without worsening the situation?
R2P is not yet a rule of customary international law,
No formal principles presently exist to guide UNSC but it builds upon existing legal foundations,
decision-making on the use of force. These including the Genocide Convention, and can be
prudential criteria can and should, however, continue described as an international "norm." A norm of
to inform public debate and deliberations among international conduct is one that has gained wide
governments. acceptance among states and there could be no
better demonstration of that acceptance in the case
HOW DOES R2P AFFECT THE IDEA OF of R2P than the unanimously adopted language of the
SOVEREIGNTY? 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. Once a
norm has gained not only formal acceptance but
States have long accepted limits on their conduct, widespread usage, it can become part of "customary
whether towards their own citizens or others. The international law."
UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires
that states protect individual and social rights; the WHAT IS THE STANDING OF R2P AT THE UN?
Geneva Conventions and various treaties and
covenants prohibiting torture, human trafficking, Since the 2005 World Summit the UN and its member
slavery, or nuclear proliferation similarly restrict states have aided in the evolution of R2P through
state behavior. actions that encourage wider acceptance of the norm
and facilitate its implementation
At the same time, there has been a shift in the
understanding of sovereignty, spurred both by a During August 2007 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
growing sensitivity to human rights and by a reaction moon appointed Dr. Edward Luck as his first Special
to mass atrocity crimes perpetrated against civilians Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. Working
by their own leaders. closely with the Special Adviser on the Prevention of
Genocide, the two Special Advisers and their Joint
Francis Deng, the former UN Special Adviser on the Office have helped advance R2P within the UN
Prevention of Genocide and the former system. In July 2013 the Secretary-General appointed
representative of the Secretary-General on internally Dr. Jennifer Welsh as his second Special Adviser on
displaced persons, developed the concept of the Responsibility to Protect, who was followed by
"sovereignty as responsibility." Chief among those Ivan Simonovic during October 2016 and Dr. Karen
responsibilities, Deng and others have argued, is the Smith during January 2019.
responsibility to protect citizens from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against During November 2014 the Joint Office launched a
humanity. new Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes as a
tool for prevention of mass atrocities
IS R2P A TOOL OF THE POWERFUL AGAINST THE
WEAK? The UN General Assembly held eight informal
interactive dialogues on R2P between 2010 and 2017,
Critics of R2P insist that it will never be applied to as well as open debates in 2009, 2018 and 2019.
major powers, and thus it is undermined by Focusing on a thematic area, the UN Secretary-
inconsistency. However, R2P imposes obligations on General released an annual report on R2P in advance
all UN member states to prevent mass atrocity of each of these discussions. Although a debate was
crimes scheduled for 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
prevented the General Assembly from meeting for
the discussion.

PAGE 12
The Secretary-General's 2009 report, entitled WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,
introduced a three-pillar strategy for R2P There are three major challenges as we continue to
implementation. The three pillars are: move R2P from theory to practice. The first is
conceptual - to ensure that the scope, and limits, of
Pillar 1: Every state has the Responsibility to the norm as it has evolved are well understood in all
Protect its populations from the four mass parts of the world. As new mass atrocity risk
atrocity crimes. situations arise, there needs to be broad
Pillar 2: The wider international community has international consensus about how to respond in the
the responsibility to encourage and assist context of R2P.
individual states in meeting that responsibility.
Pillar 3: If a state is manifestly failing to protect The second challenge is institutional. There is a need
its populations, the international community to ensure that governments and intergovernmental
must be prepared to take appropriate collective organizations have available all the diplomatic,
action in a timely and decisive manner and in civilian and, as a last resort, military capability
accordance with the UN Charter needed to ensure effective early warning and timely
action. We need international institutions with a
The three pillars have since served as a framework capacity to provide essential assistance to those
for discussing the different facets of prevention and countries who need it and to people desperately in
response in mass atrocity risk situations and have need of protection.
been frequently invoked by member states when
addressing R2P. Since 2005 some governments have taken important
steps towards implementing R2P domestically,
Member states have directly engaged with the R2P including through the appointment of a national R2P
dialogue in many ways. Since 2009, more than 134 Focal Point. A national R2P Focal Point is a senior
states and 6 regional organizations have participated government official who facilitates domestic
in the UN General Assembly’s interactive dialogues mechanisms for atrocity prevention. R2P Focal Points
on R2P. States also discuss R2P in other human rights also engage in international cooperation by
forums, including in debates on the protection of participating in a Global Network of R2P Focal Points.
civilians and at the Human Rights Council (HRC). As of January 2021, 61 member states and two
regional organizations, the European Union and
The Group of Friends of R2P is an informal cross- Organization of American States, had appointed an
regional group of 53 UN member states that share a R2P Focal Point.
common interest in R2P and in advancing the norm
within the UN-system. The Group of Friends made its The third challenge is political. In every case where
first ever joint statement at the 2014 UN General atrocities have occurred and R2P has been invoked
Assembly Informal Interactive Dialogue on R2P. A since 2005, the difference between success (Kenya,
Geneva-based Group of Friends was launched at the The Gambia, Cote d’Ivoire, etc.) and failure (Syria,
HRC during 2015, mirroring the membership of the Myanmar, etc.) has depended upon political
New York-based group. leadership and timely action by the UNSC, working
with a committed regional organization. We need to
R2P continues to evolve both politically and legally. It ensure that whenever and wherever atrocity crimes
has been formally invoked by the HRC, General are threatened, the necessary commitment will be
Assembly and UNSC. As of January 2021, R2P has been there from international decision-makers. This
invoked in 91 UNSC resolutions, 25 General Assembly means having consensual international arrangements
resolutions, and 52 HRC resolutions. These in place for effective mobilization by both
resolutions have addressed situations such as Central governments and civil society. It also requires that
African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Mali, there is consistency in the application of R2P.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, South
Sudan and Syria – as well as thematic issues such as The international community will continue to
the Protection of Civilians, Prevention of Genocide, encounter difficult when confronting mass atrocity
Small Arms and Light Weapons, Threats to crimes. Crises threatening human security continue
International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist to arise, and with them debates over the most
Acts, and the Protection of Healthcare in Conflict. appropriate response. But R2P remains the best hope
During July 2020 the HRC adopted its first stand- for those who aspire for a world free from genocide,
alone resolution on R2P. war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. R2P represents a potential historic end to
impunity, injustice and inaction.

PAGE 13
NOT IN OUR NAME: WHY MSF DOES
NOT SUPPORT THE 'RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT
FABRICE WEISSMAN, MEDECINS SAN FRONTIERES (2010)

Introduction Canadian diplomats and the former United Nations

secretary-general Kofi Annan have been among the
Should military forces be dispatched to a foreign most vocal promoters of R2P, which is also actively
country to save its population from massacre, famine, supported by militant networks linking diplomats,
epidemics, or oppression? While the question is as international lawyers, liberal think-tanks, human
old as war itself, there has been a spectacular rights NGOs, and humanitarian organizations. R2P
resurgence of interest in the issue since the end of was formally endorsed by 192 heads of state and
the Cold War.1 From Darfur to Burma, Chad to governments at the World Summit in 2005. While
Georgia, Zimbabwe to the Democratic Republic of the reaffirming that only the U.N. Security Council could
Congo, using armed force to protect civilians and authorize the use of force, the world’s leaders sought
humanitarian aid workers has been a recurrent topic to take coercive measures collectively, on a “case-by-
of controversy for policy makers, advocacy groups, case” basis, against “national authorities [that] are
and academics. manifestly failing to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
he application of military might to rescue populations against humanity.” Encouraged by these
in danger was argued in the 1990s as the “right or developments, the partisans of R2P now intend to
duty to intervene.” Today, it is debated as the make it a “full-fledged rule of customary
“responsibility to protect” (R2P), a formulation international law.” This initiative is officially
invented in 2001 by a panel of experts brought supported by a number of Western governments,
together by the government of Canada as part of the including Canada, Great Britain, France and, most
International Commission on Intervention and State recently, the United States. But southern countries
Sovereignty (ICISS). Established in the aftermath of have generally met R2P with hostility, fearing a
NATO intervention in Kosovo and the heated return to imperialism in the name of law and morality
argument over its legitimacy and legality, ICISS was
tasked with developing a normative framework that .R2P is most controversial as a theory of “just war” —
would forge international consensus on “when, if that is, as a rationale for warfare rather than, say, an
ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive — appeal to states to use diplomatic means to contain
and in particular military — action, against another violence against civilians. Arguments that link R2P
state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in and the concept of a “ just war” draw on the same
that other state.” sources of moral and legal legitimacy as humanitarian
action. For partisans of R2P, the use of violence is the
According to its supporters, the doctrine developed ultimate means of offering civilians the security and
by ICISS goes well beyond the latest variation in the assistance they deserve and are entitled to — morally,
theory of “humanitarian intervention” developed by in the name of our common humanity, and legally, as
Mario Bettati and Bernard Kouchner in the late a result of states’ commitments to ensure compliance
1980s. The ICISS doctrine is supposed to be more with International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
precise — its scope is limited to crimes of genocide, Humanitarian assistance and humanitarian
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic intervention are thus considered as part of a
cleansing — and more ambitious: whereas continuum of actions designed to civilize wars so
humanitarian intervention advocated the use of force that they are conducted according to humanitarian
primarily to “protect humanitarian convoys…and norms. The vast majority of aid organizations share
victims facing their killers,” R2P encompasses the this point of view and consider R2P as the “best
“prevention of conflicts” and the “rebuilding of normative framework to address the protection
societies.” To this end, the doctrine calls for the use needs of civilian populations.” In practice,
of “mass atrocities tool boxes” including humanitarian organizations regularly invoke R2P to
humanitarian, diplomatic, economic, judicial, social, call for the deployment of foreign troops to protect
political, and, as a last resort, military actions. R2P civilians and humanitarian workers — in Darfur, in
also claims to respect state sovereignty, recognizing Chad, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
that national governments have the primary to cite just a few examples.
responsibility to protect their own citizens. It is only
in the event of a government failing to fulfill its
“responsibility to protect” that the “international
community” would have to exert it on its behalf —
even to the point of declaring war on the
perpetrators of violence against civilians.
PAGE 14
This humanitarian enthusiasm for military might is
not lost on the general public, journalists, or
governments. Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF) is regularly asked whether it
supports the deployment of foreign troops
committed to the protection of relief workers and
civilians. In most conflicts, populations suffer from
hunger, disease, displacements, and above all from
the unchecked violence of combatants. Shouldn’t a
humanitarian organization draw the obvious
conclusion and call for armed intervention to protect
civilians and those who come to help them? Shouldn’t
it be campaigning for a legal mechanism both to
release such interventions from political
opportunism and, in extreme circumstances, to make
them compulsory?

The Fog of War

These would be simple questions to answer if

dispatching foreign troops into the middle of a civil
war automatically protected the population.
Empirical observation of foreign armed interventions
conducted since the end of the Cold War, however,
shows that deploying troops and protecting civilians
are two different things. Offering military protection
is an act of war in its own right, which means
engaging in hostilities without any certainty of
success or of avoiding a bloodbath for civilian
populations. The three foreign interventions
generally cited as successes by partisans of R2P —
the British intervention in Sierra Leone (2000), the
Australian intervention in East Timor (1999), and
NATO in Kosovo (1999) — offer many lessons.

The British intervention in Sierra Leone ended the

violence against a population that had been subjected
to a particularly brutal war since 1991. The 650
paratroopers who landed in May 2000 to support
pro-government forces and the 11,000 United
Nations blue helmets waged a war against the rebels
of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). They forced
them to sign and abide by a final peace agreement,
enabling the government in Freetown to re-establish
its sovereignty over the whole of the country. Peace
was imposed at a price: a great tolerance toward the
war crimes committed by pro-government forces, an
embargo on vital humanitarian assistance to
territories under RUF control, and the transfer of the
most intransigent combatants to Liberia, some of
whom were encouraged to overthrow Charles Taylor
In East Timor, the Australian troops who arrived
under a U.N. flag in September 1999 fought with anti-
independence militias, thus helping the Timorese
free themselves from Indonesian occupation — which
was responsible for the death of 40% of the
population in the 1970s and 1980s. The Australian
intervention did not, however, prevent the capital,
Dili, from being pillaged, nor did it stop anti-
independence militias from deporting 260,000
Timorese to the Indonesian-controlled western part
of the island..

PAGE 15
The NATO intervention in Kosovo in the spring of This is naturally a perilous undertaking, which is
1999 overturned the apartheid-like regime imposed subject to the hazards of war and runs the risks of
by Serb nationalists and put an end to their failure, escalation, and the massacre of civilians. In
numerous abuses. It allowed the Albanian Kosovars Somalia, the American and U.N. troops who landed in
to recover a greater degree of freedom and fulfill 1992-1993 in order to “secure humanitarian aid” in a
their aspirations for self-determination. Achieving context of widespread famine and insecurity proved
these ends involved the invasion and long-term incapable of protecting civilians. They rapidly
occupation of this former Yugoslavian province, became a party to the conflict and were responsible
placing it under international administration. for many IHL violations, including the bombing of aid
Intended to preserve a multiethnic Kosovo without organizations’ facilities, torturing and murdering
affecting the territorial integrity of the former non-combatants, and massacring civilians.15 In
Yugoslavia, the international operation eventually Bosnia, people who had believed in the U.N.’s
resulted in Kosovo achieving independence and the promises of protection and had sought refuge in the
expulsion from the country of a significant “safe areas” of Zepa and Srebrenica were deported
proportion of the Serb and Roma minorities by and massacred in front of the U.N. peacekeepers.
nationalist Albanian-speaking militias.
The equation that military intervention = protection
It is not a question of disputing the legitimacy of for the population is no more a given when the
these operations but emphasizing that these were intervening party arrives with a strong political will
wars against specific enemies in small countries and devotes considerable resources. According to the
where the overwhelming majority of the population “population-centered” approach developed by
supported foreign intervention. Like any political General Petraeus in Iraq from 2007 and by General
undertaking, these operations had their winners and McChrystal in Afghanistan since June 2009, the
losers, including some among the civilian population. “protection of populations” is now the main strategic
Finally, they resulted in an improved security objective of the U.S. armed forces (“the purpose of all
situation, because they rapidly enabled the counterinsurgency actions must be the protection of
intervening force or its allies to take control of a the indigenous population,” General Petraeus stated)
territory and exercise a quasi-monopoly on the use
of physical violence — in other words, to govern. For the new generation of American strategists,
counterinsurgency wars are won only with the
The highly political dimension of any protection support of the population. This, in turn, is won by
enterprise is well illustrated by the work of American responding to their “more primitive concern for
military planners participating in the Mass Atrocity safety.” The protection of civilians is seen as the
Response Operation Project. Invited by the Carr surest way to guarantee victory — he who protects,
Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School to develop an wins. In spite of the presence of 200,000 military
operational military concept that would enable R2P personnel and their modern equipment, the
to be translated into action in the event of “mass democratic armies have not been successful in
crime in a landlocked sub-Saharan African country” asserting themselves as the most effective or the
they came up with three options: first, invasion and most popular protector in Afghanistan, as illustrated
total occupation of the country, the overthrow of the by the increasing number of insurgent attacks and
criminal regime and the installation of a temporary their progress in taking over territory.
government (in other words, an Iraq-style solution,
which is their preferred option); second, partial There is no technical or legal riposte to the violence
occupation of the territory in order to create ‘‘safe of war that will ensure that populations who are
areas’’ administered by international forces, where supposed to be helped will actually be protected and
civilians under threat can seek refuge; and finally, the assisted. The calling for the military protection of a
evacuation of civilians across the border into a population signals the desire for a “just war” and for
neighboring country where refugee camps would be the advent through violence of a new political order
secured — an option rarely referred to by partisans of — and this is an undertaking that always has
R2P, who never consider the right to asylum as a way uncertain outcomes and which inevitably creates
to shield civilians from violence. victims among the people it is trying to save.

These scenarios describe the tangible implications of The Autonomy of Humanitarian Action
the use of military violence to protect people in
conflict situations: invading and occupying all or part At this point of time, Doctors Without
of a country and imposing one’s sovereignty. In other Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières refuses to call for
words, protecting populations does not mean the use of force to protect populations and relief
restoring law and order in the same way that police workers because gaining access to the battlefield and
forces do in a peaceful country, but creating a new assisting non-combatants with complete impartiality,
political order through violence. whichever side they may belong to, means that we
cannot make pronouncements on the legitimacy of
the war aims pursued by the belligerents.

PAGE 16
There is no reason why an intervention conducted in MSF does not want to become a new party to a
the name of protecting civilians should constitute an conflict where its own military strategy would be set
exception to this rule. Aid workers cannot be for or by public health imperatives. Even if we are not
against making war on Congolese factions, for pacifists, we are non-violent.
example, in order to “protect civilian populations”
any more than they can be for or against the war In our view, the aim of humanitarian action is to
started by the U.S. to “put an end to the suffering of “civilize wars” through the distinction between
the Iraqi people.” This is an operational principle and combatants and non-combatants. It is not to conduct
a prerequisite for defending a position as a third “wars of civilization” that split the world into civilized
party who demands not to be targeted in carrying people and barbarians, thus paving the way to
out relief operations in any conflict. What arguments unbridled violence. It must be said that the founding
could we use to counter the Congolese factions fathers of the ICRC and other modern originators of
refusing access to the areas they control on the basis humanitarian practices took a different view of this.
that we support international forces waging a war on Many of them believed that the “primitive peoples”
them? should be civilized (including by force) before they
could take advantage of the protection of IHL. At the
Furthermore, “distributing aid at the point of a gun,” end of the nineteenth century, Gustave Moynier, the
as advocated by Robert Kaplan following Cyclone co-founder of the Red Cross and the instigator of the
Nargis in Burma in reference to R2P, is incompatible first Geneva Conventions, judged the progress in IHL
with MSF’s modus operandi. Militarizing to be inaccessible to “savage tribes that practise
humanitarian convoys or facilities simply transforms cannibalism, engage excessively in war and give in to
them into military targets. The medical aid their brutal instincts without a second thought, while
organizations currently operating in Afghanistan, the civilized nations, which seek to humanize it,
closely protected by international forces or pro- confess even in so doing that not everything that
government security forces, have bitter experience happens is lawful.” These perceptions would continue
of this logic. Seen as legitimate targets by insurgents, until well after the Second World War, as illustrated
healthcare facilities have become part of the by the ICRC’s position in the face of the Mau Mau
battlefield and deserted by the local population. We uprising in Kenya (1952-59). For a long time, the
should remember that one of the great innovations committee refused to concern itself with the fate of
introduced by modern IHL is to proclaim the the 80,000 people interned by the British authorities
demilitarization of health and relief facilities and on the grounds that the Mau Mau detainees were too
their personnel, which is the only way of “primitive” to understand “the notions of charity and
guaranteeing impartial access to all victims of a solidarity on which the Red Cross is based.”
conflict. “Humanitarian notions…are for the moment
inaccessible to the naturally cruel black masses,”
But apart from operational constraints, there is a explained the ICRC delegate for Equatorial Africa in
more philosophical reason for refusing the call to 1962.
arms: if the purpose of humanitarian action is to limit
the devastation of war, it cannot be used as a In the minds of a large number of humanitarians and
justification for new wars. This is what the philanthropists in the nineteenth and part of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) felt twentieth centuries, savages needed to be raised to
necessary to state in 1994, after the Security Council the status of civilized people to benefit from the
had adopted two resolutions authorizing the use of protection of IHL. This is why they supported
force in Somalia to “secure conditions for European colonization. In his book on the world of
humanitarian relief operations.” The ICRC international lawyers in Geneva at the end of the
emphasized that it was under Chapter VII of the nineteenth century, Martti Koskenniemi explains that
United Nations Charter and not under IHL that the IHL practitioners considered colonization as a moral
Security Council had authorized the use of force. duty operating within a framework of natural law and
Even though the Council was acting with the human rights .Not that they came close to treating
intention of combating violations of IHL (in this those who had been colonized as the equal of the
instance, obstacles to delivering humanitarian aid), it Europeans, but “like children, with gentleness and
could not claim to act in the name of humanitarian persuasion” according to lawyer Joseph Hornung of
law: “Because international humanitarian law starts the Institute of International Law in Geneva in 1885,
from the premise that any armed conflict entails seen by his colleagues as a “radical humanitarian.”
human suffering, and undertakes to develop a set of Believing that “hegemony and guardianship
rules designed precisely to alleviate this suffering. It exercised by the strong” were legitimate provided
would be logically and legally indefensible to they were exercised “in the interests of the weak, in
conclude that this same law authorized the use of view of their future and complete emancipation,” he
armed force, including in extreme cases.” In other criticized the colonial powers for their lack of
words, “shoot to feed” or “shoot to heal” is ambition, exhorting them to export administrative
incompatible with humanitarian action. structures and a legal system that would allow
uncivilized people to accede to sovereignty.

PAGE 17
Although colonization was seen by international Dividing humanity into those who are included and
lawyers as a historical necessity whose rigors it was those who are excluded is certainly not the
right to mitigate, as Koskenniemi explains, it was also prerogative of liberal imperialism — although it may
thought of as a moral duty for the purpose of provide an opportunity for it to assert itself
creating a worldwide federation of sovereign states,
governed by humanitarian laws. This opinion radically. Peacekeeping policies and the development
dominated most of the humanitarian policy and of any kind of political order inevitably produce their
practice of the time — in France particularly, where own share of victims and people who are excluded:
the Ligue des droits de l’homme in 1931 pronounced the “residue” that will suffer a slow or violent death.
itself in favor of “demo- cratic colonization,” The people of Sierra Leone and Liberia who were
rejecting the idea of “the right to conquest” in favor sacrificed for the reestablishment of peace in Sierra
of the “civilizing mission” claimed by the official Leone, as well as the “collateral victims” of
colonial doctrine of the Third Republic. operations committed “to protect the Afghan
population” are clear examples of the old adage, “you
The refusal of MSF to call for just wars needs to be can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” But in
understood in light of the imperial aspect of liberal our view, humanitarian assistance is precisely about
universalism since the nineteenth century. We want “the revolt of the eggs.” Our relief efforts are
to break away from a humanitarian tradition that targeted at those who form the “silent residue of
associates the abolition of slavery with forced labor, politics,”31 the men and women whose very existence
human rights with colonization, humanitarian is called into question by the decisions of the
assistance with humanitarian military intervention, political and military powers.
and the liberation of Afghan women with aerial
bombardments. In a word, we want to distance Let us be clear that this is not about defending
ourselves unambiguously from the politics of force radical pacifism and even less about setting up
acting under the banner of humanitarian “humanitarian virtues” against “political cynicism.”
universalism. We simply want to assert the distinction between
two approaches that have everything to lose by being
By attempting to subject the world to its own confused with each other. First there is political and
standard of humanity, armed universalism is as much military power, which is tasked with ensuring the
a process of inclusion as exclusion, driving whatever long-term interests of the community, and which is
resists it beyond the boundaries of what is human. It necessarily called on to decide between competing
conceals a tyrannical principle of integration: the interests and sacrificing human lives, including those
inevitable eradication of anything that obeys other of non-combatants. Second there is humanitarian
standards and resists inclusion. Alexis de action, which is resolutely on the side of losers,
Tocqueville’s remarks on the fate of Native Americans whose lives it seeks to protect here and now while
in the American Revolution reveal this quite clearly, questioning the reasons for their sacrifice. A
as philosopher Alain Brossat remarks. Described by humanitarian organization cannot call for war
the Declaration of Independence as “the merciless without abandoning its role as a counterpower within
Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is this system of checks and balances.
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions,” Native Americans were seen as foreign Exceptional Circumstances
to democratic expansion. Failing to wage war
humanely and to be willing to be absorbed into the Is this to say that MSF will never call for the use of
democratic system, they were annihilated using the force in any situation? Based on the point current
methods they themselves were criticized for. “It all international debate has reached, the answer is
seems as though the inclusive movement [of never…except for the exceptions. In fact, no one can
democratic universalism] at the same time set a limit, say whether exceptional circumstances might
a frontier, a line at which the drive for inclusiveness prompt MSF to abandon its humanitarian role, dive
turned back in on itself: beyond that boundary, we do headfirst into the political debate, and demand the
not include any more; we exclude,” remarks Brossat. use of force. In this respect, MSF’s decision in June
While in the West, the universalism of human rights 1994 to classify the massacres in Rwanda as genocide
is associated with the struggle for democracy and and call for immediate military intervention against
political freedoms, it also harks back, in the former the government orchestrating the genocide — and
colonies, to the experience of domination and not for a neutral force to protect civilians — must be
exploitation. This is something that does not seem to seen as an exception that proves the rule.
be of concern to the co-president of the ICISS,
Gareth Evans. In his seminal work on R2P, Evans, an But one thing is sure, namely, that anyone who issues
indefatigable advocate of the R2P, seems to find it a call to arms must explain their intentions: war,
flattering to be compared to Christopher Columbus certainly, but against whom, with whom, at what
and Vasco da Gama, coming with the “Bible and the price, for what policy, and why here rather than
sword.” elsewhere?

PAGE 18
Humanitarian organizations that regularly call for It is sufficient to have clear evidence that “large-
troops to be dispatched in the name of R2P rarely scale killing or ethnic cleansing” is “likely” to happen,
answer these questions and rarely specify what and “reasonable grounds for believing, in all the
political order the war is meant to produce and why circumstances, that other less extreme measures
it would be better equipped to guarantee a [than war] would not have worked.” In the final
population’s security. When eight non-governmental analysis, he observes, deciding on the countries
organizations (NGOs), including Human Rights where the use of violence is necessary is based on
Watch, Oxfam, Caritas-France, and CARE, called on “non quantifiable and subjective judgements.9 In
the European Union in December 2008 to fulfil its order to establish a list of priority countries, he
“responsibility to protect” using its “military and suggests referring to the experts of the International
operational capacity” to “deploy a force that could Crisis Group, of which he was once president.
effectively protect the population now” in the eastern
part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Is there a conflict in the world in which civilians have
they did not specify how. Should it pacify all of the no likelihood of being killed, raped, or forcibly
eastern part and put it under international displaced? Clearly not. R2P is therefore a doctrine of
supervision on behalf of the U.N.? Send preventive war applicable to all countries involved in
reinforcements for government troops to fight the conflict or likely to descend into it as soon as they
rebels? Put an end to the interventions of fulfill the “non-quantifiable and subjective criteria”
neighboring Uganda and Rwanda? All of these defined by those who advocate it. This is why it is
questions were ignored as though the deployment of open to all kinds of interpretation. While it allows
international troops could in itself establish order Evans to advocate for the world to be governed by
and security. And when Oxfam, for example, deplored experts and philosophers — authorized to designate
the fact that the United Nations troops dispatched to on which countries liberal democracies should
Chad were proving incapable of guaranteeing the declare war — R2P also lets states express their
safety of civilians, it demanded even more troops political preference in a universal moral language.
without questioning the reasons for their failure or This was how the Sri Lankan government defended
the policy and strategy they were supposed to be total war against Tamil Tiger separatist guerrillas,
implementing. calling it the “largest humanitarian relief operation in
the world” and the most comprehensive expression
Let us emphasize that the debate over the of the “responsibility to protect.” Similarly, Russian
appropriateness of starting a just war cannot be President Dmitry Medvedev justified the intervention
decided by applying a standard or rule of formal law of Russian troops in South Ossetia as the “only way to
— for MSF or any partisans of R2P. It would be save lives” faced with a power that “opted for
particularly absurd to define a threshold of violence genocide in order to accomplish its political
against civilians which, if crossed, would open the objectives.”41 At her first speech to the Security
way to armed intervention. Prohibiting killings and Council on January 29, 2009, the new United States
deportations beyond a certain level is tantamount to ambassador to the United Nations clearly lent her
condoning them below that level. It is this Catch-22 support to R2P, stating that “the international
that makes R2P a “just war” theory that is as vague community has a responsibility to protect civilian
and subjective as the right to humanitarian populations from violations of international
intervention. References to genocide, crimes against humanitarian law when states are unwilling or unable
humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing are of no to do so,” to the point of “acting early and decisively.”
great help in defining the conditions for the use of This responsibility, she explained, must be exercised
force. This is recognized by Gareth Evans himself: in Afghanistan, where “the Taliban forces deliberately
“the range of conduct potentially covered by both employ tactics designed to increase the number of
war crimes and crimes against humanity is extremely innocent civilian deaths,” and in Gaza where
wide,” and “the notion of ‘ethnic cleansing’ has no “violations of international humanitarian law have
formal legal definition.” Even the use of the term been perpetrated by Hamas” and where “there have
“genocide” has been the subject of much controversy, also been numerous allegations made against Israel,
as was the case in Sudan. some of which are deliberately designed to inflame.
In these conditions, one can understand the
Fearing that legal wrangling could play into the hands resistance of weaker countries to the legalization of
of criminal powers, Evans therefore proposes to R2P. How could they support such a vague standard
ignore the categories that define the scope of R2P that would authorize the five permanent members of
and focus on situations characterized by “mass the Security Council to decide which country can be
atrocity crimes” — in other words, on morality. invaded and occupied to protect civilians from
Furthermore, he specifies that embarking on military excessive violence, when the territorial integrity of
action is not dependent on exhausting all diplomatic these protective powers is fiercely defended by the
options or on atrocities having already taken place threat of a nuclear holocaust?

PAGE 19
The latter is a crime against humanity if ever there
was one. Given that implementation of R2P is
condemned to be conditioned by the power
relationships Why Médecins Sans Frontières Does
Not Support the R2P and domination patterns that
shape the international stage, legalizing it would
effectively be legalizing a new form of imperialism —
another reason for MSF to distance itself from it.
Although MSF is opposed to the use of violence for
humanitarian ends, it cannot fail to support the
general idea that states have a role to play in
preventing and containing the violence of war. It is
the enthusiasm of the partisans of R2P for military
means that is so perplexing. Policies on taking in
refugees (curiously absent from the R2P “mass
atrocities tool boxes”) as well as policies on
mediation and on providing relief in conflict zones
certainly have their limitations, but they have their
virtues too. In our view, the role of a humanitarian
organization is to cultivate the latter.

PAGE 20
WHAT DRIVES PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS?
PEACE SCIENCE DIGEST (2018)

Talking Points In this article, the authors use a series of survey

In the United States, military interventions experiments to identify the main drivers behind U.S.
conducted for humanitarian objectives receive public support for humanitarian interventions. They
significantly higher public support than structure their surveys to consider three potential
interventions serving security interests. sources of an individual’s attitude towards
The most important factor behind public support humanitarian interventions, including views about
for humanitarian interventions was the view that costs, strategic consequences, and moral obligation.
the United States had a moral obligation to The authors then try to narrow in on the specific
protect civilians. “mechanisms of morality,” derived from the most
Republicans exhibited high levels of support for common drivers of the respondent’s moral
the use of force across the board, regardless of convictions about intervention, and also incorporate
type of intervention, whereas Democrats and survey questions on political partisanship and various
Independents exhibited lower levels of support other related variables.
for the use of force overall with an increase in
support in the case of humanitarian intervention. The first survey examined differences in support
Independents consistently showed the least between two hypothetical military intervention
support for military intervention scenarios: one focused on protecting civilians and
the other focused on more defined security
Summary objectives. The former involved a foreign leader
invading another country to restrain the government
Humanitarian interventions have become a common from harming civilians, and the latter involved a
aspect of United States foreign policy, especially over foreign leader invading another country to gain
the last several decades. Since the 1990s, over half of power. The next survey involved the same situations
U.S.-led interventions have purportedly been but replaced “foreign leader” with “U.S. President” to
motivated by humanitarian objectives, including see if attitudes would change depending on where
Somalia in 1993, Bosnia in 1995, and Libya in 2011. As the invading forces originated. The survey
with all military action, however, the human and respondents were also asked questions about the
economic costs of war must be justified to the public motivation behind their support/lack of support,
whose support, or lack thereof, can influence the including questions around morality, costs, and
trajectory of U.S. involvement. Public opinion plays a strategic consequences. Morality was gauged by
particularly important role in humanitarian asking whether the U.S. had a “moral obligation to
interventions because “rather than responding to intervene.” Costs were gauged by asking questions
security threats, these operations rely on the public’s regarding the likelihood of U.S. casualties, the
belief that military action to protect foreign civilians financial costs of the operation, burden-sharing and
is in the interest of the United States and worth the multilateral authorization, and military strategy.
potential cost.” The important role public opinion Finally, strategic consequences were gauged by
plays in determining the involvement, methods, and asking the respondents about the potential
longevity of a particular intervention thus becomes a consequences if the U.S. didn’t intervene, including
significant topic of study for academics, as well as for “creating a breeding ground for terrorists” and
political decision-makers or practitioners working to “generating reputational costs.” A different survey
conduct or avoid these interventions. The respective was used to separate morality into five different
stakeholders are eager to understand what drives components to identify which aspect of morality was
public opinion on this matter. most influential in a respondent’s support for
humanitarian intervention: harm/care (responding to
Humanitarian intervention harm done to vulnerable civilians);
fairness/reciprocity (the desire to hold perpetrators
“the deployment of military force across borders, of violence against civilians accountable);
without the consent fo the target state, with the authority/respect (upholding international law
predominant purpose of preventing or ending the regarding the treatment of civilians); purity/sanctity
widespread suffering or death of foreign civilians.” (upholding the standards of common decency
accepted by civilized countries); or in-group/loyalty
(American exceptionalism: the U.S. doesn’t turn a
blind eye to atrocities).

PAGE 21
The survey findings showed that humanitarian Looking back on past U.S. interventions, the public is
objectives attract high levels of public support. Just often (initially or through a conflict’s evolution)
over half of respondents supported a military unaware of the true motives behind military action
intervention with more defined security objectives, until long after U.S. involvement ends. During the
while 80% of respondents supported a humanitarian 2011 NATO operation in Libya, the Obama
intervention scenario. “Moral obligation” was the administration clearly stated that the U.S. role was to
most significant factor behind over half of the protect the Libyan people and establish a no-fly
respondents’ support, easily outpacing factors of cost zone, and that broadening the scope of the operation
and strategic consequences. In the subsequent to include regime change would be a mistake. We
survey separating morality into five main concerns, now know, however, many events that transpired in
fear of harm being done to civilians was the most Libya—including regime change—were in direct
significant factor in an individual’s support— contrast to the administration’s original justification
individuals were less concerned about whether for military intervention. Although the argument that
intervening would allow foreign leaders to get away NATO’s intervention prevented a massacre in
with human rights abuses, create a dangerous Benghazi is made, the overall humanitarian
international environment, contradict U.S. values, or achievements of the intervention are mixed: a no-fly
permit violations of “civilized” behavior. Interestingly, zone was never imposed, rebel forces were permitted
the belief in the United States’ moral obligation to and supported in their rise to power that posed
protect civilians was common among major political further threat to civilian lives, lengthened the civil
parties, but partisan differences began to emerge war, and contributed to the rise of stronger militant
when respondents were asked about support for groups like ISIS—bringing along more civilian
other types of military intervention. Republicans casualties. Most importantly, military interventions
exhibited high levels of support for the use of force was once again placed over viable nonviolent
across the board, regardless of the type/reasons alternatives that presented themselves at many
given for the intervention, whereas Democrats and points.
Independents exhibited lower levels of support for
the overall use of force with an increase in support in Practical Implications
the case of humanitarian intervention. Additionally,
Independents consistently showed the least support The findings from this research could be used in two
for intervention, while Democrats’ support for both ways. First, political leaders could use the findings of
interventions was in the middle, with a sharp spike in this study to inform how they frame military
favor for humanitarian interventions. interventions in order to garner the most public
support—a use that certainly is not in the interest of
Contemporary Relevance those of us who advocate for nonviolent responses to
any form of conflict. Due to the public’s strong
This research advances understanding on why and support for military action when conducted for
under what circumstances people are most likely to humanitarian reasons, political leaders can
support so-called humanitarian interventions, which, potentially manipulate the public’s sense of morality
due to the nature of military actions involved, should to fit their foreign policy agendas by capitalizing on a
be considered wars. These findings also provide an humanitarian crisis to gain backing for military
opportunity to reflect on past wars supposedly interventions conceived with more strategic
conducted for humanitarian reasons, while making us geopolitical or economic goals in mind. Second, by
more cautious about the humanitarian buzzwords recognizing this primary application of the research,
that are likely to be used in the future when leaders active citizens can be doubly vigilant about keeping
seek public support for military action. By identifying their governments in check by critically attending to
that most Americans are supportive of humanitarian the justifications provided for military interventions
interventions, and that this support stems mostly and engaging in advocacy for viable nonviolent
from a sense of moral obligation to protect civilians, alternatives. Peace- and justice-oriented institutions
this research reinforces what political leaders already such as the Institute for Policy Studies, the Center
largely know: that providing a humanitarian for International Policy, and our own War Prevention
justification provides them with a solid path for Initiative provide strong analysis that is grounded not
garnering public support for military action, as long in idealism but rather in a rigorous examination of
as they are able to sell the notion that a “good war” is the context, the unintended effects of military action,
necessary to protect human life from “evil.” An and the myriad preferable alternatives.
ongoing question is: can humanism be exported
through force? This research serves as an important reminder that
political leaders need the public’s support to
undertake or sustain a military intervention—and
that therefore the public can also choose to withhold
this support if they realize they are being
manipulated to facilitate a military intervention.

PAGE 22
AFGHANISTAN: CLEAR CASE OF HOW
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION CAN
MORPH INTO MILITARY CONTROL
TIM MAWE & VITTORIO BUFACCHI, IRISH EXAMINER (2021)

Joe Biden is being dragged over the coals for the Over the last 25 years humanitarian intervention took
impetuous capitulation of the US involvement in on a more general meaning, the versatility of the
Afghanistan. label lending itself to a wide and diverse range of
military engagements vaguely corresponding to the
The ‘hawks’ in the US administration see this as an general notion of using force overseas in the name of
embarrassing defeat, making America look weak, humanitarian values. Today the humanitarian
which is the greatest imaginable sin. Others are intervention label is used as an umbrella term for
merely accusing Biden of condemning innocent classical humanitarian intervention, liberal
women, men and children to a certain destiny of interventionism, military humanitarianism, and other
unspeakable suffering and death. improvised initiatives.

There is an irony in the fact that many of those who As the meaning of ‘humanitarian intervention’ drifted
criticize, on humanitarian grounds, the decision by from the classical concern with atrocity-prevention
the US to pull out of Afghanistan were also those to the much more general contemporary agenda, the
who, 20 years ago, criticized the decision to get distinctiveness of the original conception and the
involved in Afghanistan in the first place. And of particularity of its merits and defects have become
course, these are the same people who also criticized increasingly obscured. Humanitarian intervention
the US military interventions in Kosovo (1998-9), Iraq has morphed into a dangerously vague notion that
(2003-11) and Syria (2014). can too easily be employed as a disguise for the
pursuit of less noble neo-imperialist ambitions.
Was Biden’s decision wrong, not only strategically
but also morally? The case of Afghanistan

What is humanitarian intervention? The risk of unscrupulous abuse of the term

‘humanitarian intervention’ to justify military ends is
At the root of this debate lies the status of blatantly clear in the case of Afghanistan. Of course,
‘humanitarian intervention’, a notoriously slippery the plight of women under the Taliban regime is real,
concept. This term was first used by English jurist but this reality has also been instrumentalised to
William Edward Hall in 1880 to articulate an already justify the military control by the US and its NATO
long-standing idea of using force in defence of allies of a foreign territory.
civilian populations overseas.
And while there is no doubt that the last 20 years
He conceived of humanitarian intervention as an have been positive for many women in Afghanistan,
armed response to ‘tyrannical conduct’ of a time-indeterminate military intervention by a foreign
government towards its subjects, massacres and power is not and cannot be the solution. Within the
brutality in a civil war, or religious persecution. broader reckoning as to the future shape of Western
foreign policy, the future of the idea of 'humanitarian
But it was only in the 1990s that this concept came to intervention' is also very much in question.
prominence as a possible solution to humanitarian
crises arising out of intra-state conflict and Afghanistan is facing yet another humanitarian crisis
conscience-shocking atrocities. In the wake of the of inestimable proportions. The scenes in Kabul
Rwandan Genocide in 1994 and the failure of the Airport bring shame to the international community.
international community to do anything of Fear and desperation are palpable everywhere.
significance to save hundreds of thousands of lives,
the prospect of standing idly by in the face of In the next few months many atrocities will occur
atrocities became increasingly unconscionable. without the world even being aware of it. But we
must not make the mistake of assuming that a
prolonged military intervention disguised as
humanitarian intervention is the simple answer to an
exceptionally complex problem.

PAGE 23
Whatever happens next, it is important that the
correct lessons are drawn from Afghanistan. The first
lesson should not be that humanitarian intervention
is illegitimate, impracticable, and therefore to be
confined to the dustbin of history.

Rather, what is needed is much better differentiation

between classical humanitarian intervention and
other forms of military intervention. The problems
that the 19th century conception of humanitarian
intervention was originally conceived to resolve have
not disappeared.

And as much as the West wants to think that we can

stop engaging in the problems of the world, the
reality is that there will still be a need for
humanitarian intervention, properly defined, into the
future.

The failures in Afghanistan and Iraq have been

failures of ill-defined and badly executed missions
which combined elements of self-defence, nation-
building, and humanitarian endeavour. The noble
idea of humanitarian intervention should not be
tarnished by the failings of these missions.

PAGE 24
THE EVOLVING LEGITIMACY OF
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS
CONOR FOLEY, INTERNATIONAL JOUNRNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS (2013)

When can armed soldiers from one country lawfully The second is that powers of the Security Council are
enter into the territory of another country in order so unbound that there is nothing to prevent it
to protect the citizens of that State from grave declaring any situation to be a ‘threat to international
violations of international human rights or peace and security’, thus allowing it to invoke
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)? Article 2 of Chapter VII in order to circumvent article 2 of the
the UN Charter prohibits the use of force and Charter. The third, which this author favours, is that
interference in States’ internal affairs, even by the there is an emerging international agreement that
UN itself. According to the Charter, there are only the UN, by virtue of its certain legal personality,
two permissible bases for the use of force: the increasingly regards itself as subject to the positive
inherent right of self-defence or authorisation by the and negative obligations of international law.
UN Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII Accepting this argument fully, however, will require
powers, in response to a threat to international some hard thinking about the hierarchy of
peace and security. international legal norms in relation to Security
Council decisions and the immunities with which the
Some scholars argue that a third basis may be UN has used until now to shield its peacekeeping
emerging in customary international law, the right to missions.
‘humanitarian intervention’, although there is little
State practice to justify this claim. In the aftermath of 1. An Experience from Sri Lanka
NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, carried out without
UN Security Council authority, an International In the spring of 2009, while I was conducting an
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty evaluation for a humanitarian agency in Sri Lanka,
(ICISS) was established, which published a report, government forces stormed the final hold-out of the
“The Responsibility to Protect”, in 2001. Initially Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil
heralded as ‘an emerging international norm’, some Tigers) in the north of the country. The LTTE forces
language associated with R2P was included in the UN had compelled civilians to accompany them as they
World Summit Outcome document, but the attempts retreated into an ever smaller area of territory, often
to reach this consensus largely gutted the concept of shooting those that tried to escape (UNITED
its normative content. In the aftermath of the NATIONS, 2011). Between January and May of that
invasion of Iraq few were prepared to allow individual year, around 300,000 civilians, along with the
powerful States to take upon themselves the role of remnants of the LTTE’s forces, were blockaded into
judge, jury and executioner in deciding when such an area around the size of New York City’s Central
interventions could take place. Park, where up to 40,000 of them may have been
killed (INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP, 2010). The
Recent years have, however, seen the deployment of so-called ‘no fire zone’, area was shelled incessantly
increasing numbers of soldiers in UN peacekeeping by government forces, and hospitals and food-
missions, authorised under Chapter VII mandate to distribution points appear to have been deliberately
use force to protect civilians under imminent threat targeted (STEIN, 2010). Many more people died from
of physical violence. There are currently well over starvation and disease, because the government
100,000 troops deployed on missions in various parts blocked humanitarian access and consistently under-
of the world. Given that Chapter VII contains no estimated the number of civilians in the area. Others
references to human rights, IHL or the protection of were summarily, either executed during the final
civilians, and that the UN Charter itself provides no assault or after they had been identified as LTTE
basis for peacekeeping, this is a significant members during the screening process (THE TIMES,
development in international law and international 2009). Videos have since emerged of bound prisoners
relations. being shot in the head and the corpses of naked
women who appear to have been sexually assaulted.
There appear to be three possible arguments which
could be used to justify this practice. The first is that Aid organizations attempting to help the affected
there is a necessary causal connection between grave population were systematically harassed and
violations of human rights and IHL and threats to intimidated (FOLEY, 2009a). National staff members
international peace and security – through, for were arrested on trumped-up charges.
example, the spill-over effects of a conflict or cross
border flows of refugees.

PAGE 25
The pro-government media repeatedly accused these I remember listening to the broadcast at the time and
organizations of giving support to the LTTE (DAILY thinking about it again when I was in Sri Lanka
MIRROR, 2009), and similar accusations were made because my own wife was pregnant at the time, and
against the United Nations mission in the country we subsequently named our son Daniel. The
(ECONOMIST, 2010).Most international humanitarian genocides of Rwanda and Srebrenica had shaped the
agencies did not speak out publicly about the attitudes of my generation. Civilians had been
massacres that their staff members were witnessing. massacred while UN peacekeepers looked on and aid
Some also agreed to help in the construction of what workers proved powerless to help since, as an
were de facto internment camps into which survivors advertisement by Medicins sans Frontieres (MSF) put
of the massacre were herded for screening and it pithily, ‘one cannot stop genocide with doctors’
detention. International aid workers who did speak (CROSSLINES GLOBAL REPORT. 1994).
out were expelled when their visas ran out and
agencies that remained argued that it was better to 2. The Birth of the Responsibility to Protect
retain a presence in the country than to abandon it. A
similar argument was made to justify involvement in At the end of the 1990s, the North Atlantic Treaty
the construction of the camps (FOLEY, 2009c). Organization (NATO) took direct military action
against Serbian forces in Kosovo, an Australian-led
After the conflict ended the government blocked all force intervened in East Timor and British
calls for an independent inquiry and mounted a paratroopers helped to beat back a rebel advance in
campaign of overt physical intimidation of the United Sierra Leone. While the latter two interventions had
Nations (UN) mission in the country (ECONOMIST, UN approval, the one in Kosovo did not. A
2010). Yet, although the available evidence suggests subsequent report by the International Commission
that the Sri Lankan government may be guilty of a far on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) argued
larger crime than the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, that international human rights and humanitarian law
it has faced little of the international opprobrium created positive obligations on States to intervene
that attached itself to the Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s when the rights that these protected were being
(FOLEY, 2009b). In May 2009, the UN Human Rights violated in a large-scale or systematic way
Council adopted a resolution praising its victory and (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION
humanitarian assistance efforts. Brazil joined China, AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY, 2001). The UN itself was
Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan in voting down calls for an bound by some of these obligations, the report’s
international investigation into possible war crimes. authors argued, and if the Security Council failed to
fulfil its ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P), these
Thirteen years before this massacre, in 1996, the BBC obligations could pass on to others. The concept of
foreign correspondent, Fergal Keane, recorded a R2P was embraced in influential UN reports (UNITED
letter to his new-born son, Daniel, which became the NATIONS, 2004 and 2005b) and a reference to it was
most requested broadcast in the corporation’s incorporated into the outcome document of the
history. He told him that: high-level meeting of the General Assembly in
September 2005 (UNITED NATIONS, 2005a).
I am pained, perhaps haunted is a better word, by the
memory, suddenly so vivid now, of each suffering However, a closer look at the wording of this
child I have come across on my journeys. To tell you document shows that the claims of those who argue
the truth, it’s nearly too much to bear at this moment that R2P is an emerging international legal norm,
to even think of children being hurt and abused and sometimes described as a ‘re-characterization of
killed. And yet looking at you, the images come sovereignty’, are somewhat overblown.3 The actual
flooding back […] There is one last memory. Of text adopted says little more than that States have a
Rwanda, and the churchyard of the parish of responsibility to protect their own citizens and that
Nyarabuye where, in a ransacked classroom, I found a the UN Security Council should support them in
mother and her three young children huddled together these efforts. The furthest it goes on the subject of
where they’d been beaten to death. The children had direct interventions in other countries is in a rather
died holding onto their mother, that instinct we all convoluted commitment ‘to take collective action, in
learn from birth and in one way or another cling to a timely and decisive manner, through the Security
until we die. Council, in accordance with the Charter (UNITED
NATIONS, 1945), including Chapter VII, on a case-by-
(BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 1996). case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional
organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means
be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail
to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
(UNITED NATIONS, 2005a, para. 139).

PAGE 26
 . At the end of the first Gulf War, in 1991, over two
million Kurds fled their homes after their uprising
As one observer has noted, this amounts to saying against Saddam Hussein collapsed when the Western
little more than that the Security Council should backing that they were expecting failed to
continue authorizing, on an ad hoc basis, the type of materialise. Fearing another chemical weapons
interventions that it has been authorizing for many attack, like the one at Halabja in 1988, they headed
years (CHESTERMAN, 2011). for the Turkish border, but found it sealed off by the
Turkish government.5 By April 1991, up to 1,000
Bellamy has described the agreed wording as ‘R2P people were starving or freezing to death every day
lite’ arguing that it differed from the proposals (FREEDMAN; BOREN, 1992, p. 48). The world had just
brought forward by the ICISS ‘by (among other seen United States (US) airpower annihilate the Iraqi
things) emphasizing international assistance to armed forces, and Western public opinion refused to
States (pillar two), downplaying the role of armed accept that nothing could be done to save the Kurds
intervention, and rejecting criteria to guide decision- from another act of genocide. When the UN Security
making on the use of force and the prospect of Council passed Security Council Resolution 688
intervention not authorized by the UN Security (1991), calling for ‘humanitarian access’, Britain,
Council’ (BELLAMY, 2006b). This has been rejected by France and the US deployed ground troops to turn
others such as Evans, a co-chair of the ICISS, who back the Iraqi army and persuade the refugees that it
argues that ‘the agreed text differs little from all the was safe to come down from the mountains.6
previous formulations in the ICISS, High Level Panel
and secretary general’s reports’ (EVANS, 2008a, p. Several thousand ground troops were deployed and a
47).4 Weiss, who served as Research Director of the ‘no-fly zone’ was subsequently declared over
ICISS, also rejects Bellamy’s description, although his northern Iraq, in what became known as ‘Operation
view of what was in fact endorsed is revealing: Provide Comfort’. Apart from the military forces
used, 30 other countries contributed relief supplies
the proverbial new bottom-line is clear: when a State and some 50 humanitarian non-governmental
is unable or unwilling to safeguard its own citizens organisations (NGOs) either offered assistance or
and peaceful means fail, the resort to outside participated in this operation (TESON, 1996).The
intervention, including military force (preferably with humanitarians attended regular military briefings and
Security Council approval) remains a distinct had access to military telecommunications and
possibility. transportation, while heavily armed troops rode with
the trucks on which displaced people were returning
(WEISS, 2008, p. 142). (COOK, 1995, p. 42), setting controversial precedents
for future cooperation.

In a highly critical account of R2Ps significance, The history of what happened next largely depends
Orford argues that the ‘responsibility to protect on who is telling it. Two broad narratives have
concept can best be understood as offering a emerged, which, while they converge around the
normative grounding to the practices of international same events, do so from diametrically opposed
executive action that were initiated in the era of perspectives. What is not disputed is that Operation
decolonisation and that have been gradually Provide Comfort was the first of a series of
expanding ever since’ (ORFORD, 2011, p. 10). interventions in which international armed soldiers
and civilian aid workers were deployed in what are
Plainly, two years after the invasion of Iraq, however, commonly referred to as ‘complex emergencies’, with
the majority of the UN’s members were not prepared the aim of ‘protecting’ threatened populations.8 The
to allow powerful States to brush away the best known of these were in: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia-
constraints of international law as it currently stands. Herzegovina, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East
But the fudge also represented a deeper clash over Timor, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
the recent history of what are commonly referred to Côte d´Ivoire, Darfur and South Sudan. About the
as humanitarian interventions. only other thing on which everyone can agree is that
their results can best be described as ‘mixed’.
3. From humanitarian access to humanitarian
interventions For some, these ‘humanitarian interventions’ have
happened in a period of misguided folly that has seen
To paraphrase a Balkan’s dictum about Kosovo, it all the weakening of both national sovereignty and
started in Iraq and perhaps it finished in Iraq as well. international law.

PAGE 27
The interventions have gone far beyond the In arguing for an expansion the ‘right’ to military
‘traditional principles’ of UN peacekeeping – intervention during an emergency humanitarian
deployment with the consent of the parties, on the crisis to non-emergency contexts, Blair was using a
basis of strict impartiality and limited use of force – double sleight-of-hand. Although some States have
and the neutral model of delivering humanitarian aid occasionally asserted they are legally justified in
pioneered by the International Committee of the Red taking such actions – including Britain in relation to
Cross (ICRC). By undermining these principles, many Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq and
argue, the interventions have needlessly politicised NATOs actions during the Kosovo crisis – there is
the humanitarian field and provided cover for little State practice to show its emergence as a
regime-change invasions and counter-insurgency customary rule of international law (GRAY, 2008;
strategies. DUFFY, 2006). As a Foreign Office policy paper has
put it ‘the best case that can be made in support of
For others, they simply exposed that the traditional humanitarian intervention is that it cannot be said to
model itself was long-broken, based on an outdated be unambiguously illegal […] But the overwhelming
‘Westphalian’ deference to inviolable national majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down
sovereignty. These argue that the humanitarian against [it]’ (UK Foreign Office Policy Document, No.
crises of the 1990s showed that the UN-based system 148, quoted in HARRIS, 1998, p. 918).
of collective security had become an excuse for
indifference to and inertia in the face of mass global The UN Charter (1945) contains no such
suffering and crimes against humanity. The principle ‘humanitarian’ exception to its explicit prohibition on
of ‘non-interference’ in a State´s domestic affairs, the use of force save in self-defence or with the
enshrined in article 2 of the UN Charter and authorisation of the Security Council acting under
‘humanitarian neutrality’, contained in the ICRC’s Chapter VII. Blair’s Attorney General had also
statute, need to be reconceptualised in the light of explicitly advised him that there was no basis for
the development of international human rights law, using the right to humanitarian intervention as a
which provide a concrete point of reference against basis for the invasion and that the best argument that
which to judge state conduct (INTERNATIONAL could be made was around the ‘revival’ of claims that
COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE Iraq was still in breach of its cease-fire obligations
SOVEREIGNTY, 2001, para. 2.15). Preserving from the first Gulf War.12
neutrality in the face of mass atrocities was
tantamount to ‘complicity with evil’. Membership of the UN is open to all ‘peace-loving
nations’ irrespective of the nature of their
During the 1990s these arguments were mainly government providing that they accept the
confined to discussions amongst human rights and obligations of the Charter. The primary purpose of
humanitarian practitioners, but they spilled the UN is to ‘maintain international peace and
dramatically into mainstream debate during the security’.13 Its other purposes include: developing
arguments surrounding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. friendly relations amongst nations based on respect
Britain’s then prime minister, Tony Blair, explicitly for the principle of equal rights and self-
placed his actions within the context of R2P when he determination of peoples, promoting economic,
argued that it was international law which was at social, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, and
fault in not permitting such invasions because: respect for human rights.14 The respective weight of
these objectives have been the subject of much
a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its international jurisprudence and legal debate and it is
people and there is nothing anyone can do, when now widely accepted that by virtue of their
dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it membership of the UN, States are bound by some
comes within the definition of a humanitarian restrictions on their actions and how they treat their
catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass own people.
graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some
to be something of a catastrophe). This may be the Certain crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and
law, but should it be? crimes against humanity are now recognised as being
so serious that they can be prosecuted regardless of
(BLAIR, 2004) who committed them or where they took place and
international criminal tribunals have been
established to bring the perpetrators to justice.

PAGE 28
 Former heads of State have been arrested and By the time I reached Sri Lanka in 2009, however,
charged notwithstanding their claims to state or most had backed away from such liberal muscularity.
diplomatic immunity. It is also now widely accepted The humanitarian narrative, epitomised by the
that some of the most basic human rights have powerful imagery in Keane’s Letter to Daniel, had
attained the status of jus cogens, which is a been largely eclipsed by another set of images
‘peremptory norm’ (UNITED NATIONS, 1969, art. 53) associated with the US military presence in
of general international law that can only be over Afghanistan and Iraq: the phosphorous attacks in
ridden by another peremptory norm (HUMAN Fallujah, torture in Abu Ghraib and the spiralling
RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 1994, para. 10). However, the number of children killed by drone strikes. My own
extent to which these rights impose positive and views on the subject had changed considerably and
negative extraterritorial obligations remains disputed the massacres in Sri Lanka brought them close to full
and there is no general acceptance that States can circle.
resort to unilateral force to protect them in other
States. Indeed such an action would also be a clear 4. Protection of civilians
violation of the most basic norms of international law
and could amount to a crime of aggression. I had first gone to Northern Iraq as a journalist in
1994. I joined the staff of Amnesty International UK
shortly afterwards and had responsibility in the
Advocates of ‘humanitarian intervention’ have long Section for our work on impunity during the
protested at the association of their cause with Pinochet case. I delivered some training to refugees
operations such as the invasion of Iraq. During in Kosovo during the war in 1999 and was
discussions on Darfur in 2007, the International subsequently seconded there as a Protection Officer
Crisis Group (ICG) dubbed Blair a ‘false friend’ of the for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
R2P doctrine (EVANS, 2007) for his attempts to re- (UNHCR). I spent a year and half in Afghanistan,
package the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian managing a legal aid project helping returning Afghan
intervention (BLAIR, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). Yet this is refugees. After Afghanistan, I took a series of shorter
the logic of allowing powerful States discretion to posts in other field missions until my wife found out
decide unilaterally when and where to take military that she was pregnant.
action in defence of human rights. Shortly after R2P’s
‘adoption’ by the UN General Assembly Russia’s Sri Lanka was, therefore, my last field mission and I
foreign minister cited it in justification of military came home exhausted, burnt-out and ready to put
action in South Ossetia,16 France did so in relation to both humanitarian aid and the debates about it
a proposed forcible intervention to deliver food aid in behind me for some time. For the next couple of
Myanmar (FRANCE, 2008). Britain’s minister of years I worked as a home-based consultant, carrying
defence even reached for the concept when arguing out research, doing evaluations and delivering
for a weakening of the protections of the Geneva training, while learning the far more challenging
Conventions for the inmates in Guantanamo Bay skills of fatherhood. Towards the end of 2010 I was
(REID, 2006a). Given that Britain, France and Russia hired by the UN Department of Peacekeeping
are all permanent members of the Security Council, Operations (DPKO) to write a scenario-based training
such assertions can be rejected as opportunistic, but course on the protection of civilians (POC). Although
they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. I had been involved in debates about ‘protection’ for
many years, the concept was new to me, which
Some international non-governmental organizations possibly reflects its emerging status in international
(INGO) have lobbied for military intervention in law. In February 1999 the UN Security Council had
certain circumstances. As discussed above, MSF did requested that the Secretary General submit ‘a
so during the conflict in Rwanda in 1994. CARE called report with recommendations on how it could act to
for military intervention in Somalia in 1991. Oxfam improve both the physical and legal protection of
supported these calls and also called for military civilians in situations of armed conflict’ (UNITED
intervention in eastern Zaire in 1996, and Sierra NATIONS, 1999d). The report was published in
Leone in 2000. In 1998, it called on the British September 1999 and contained a series of
Government to make a ‘credible threat of force’ recommendations on how the Security Council could
against the Serbs in Kosovo, although once the ‘compel parties to conflict to respect the rights
intervention started it decided not to take a position guaranteed to civilians by international law and
and resisted calls from its Belgrade office to convention’ (UNITED NATIONS, 1999c). The following
condemn attacks on civilian targets by NATO, month the Security Council authorized a
arguing that as an organization whose international peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone, UN Mission
headquarters was in one of the countries doing the in Sierra Leone – UNAMSIL, which specifically stated
bombing, this was too controversial a position to take that:
(VAUX, 2001, p. 21).

PAGE 29
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United This coincided with the Security Council decision to
Nations, decides that in the discharge of its mandate invoke POC as justification for authorizing military
UNAMSIL may take the necessary action to ensure the intervention in Libya, and was just before the UN
security and freedom of movement of its personnel mission in Côte d’Ivoire took military action to
and, within its capabilities and areas of deployment, protect civilians against the forces of the incumbent
to afford protection to civilians under imminent President. The following year I was re-hired by
threat of physical violence taking into account the DPKO to work on some mission-specific training
responsibilities of the Government of Sierra Leone. using a similar model. A whistle-stop tour brought
me to Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
(UNITED NATIONS, 1999e, para. 14). shortly before rebels of the M23 movement invaded
the town, out to the border between Liberia and Côte
The wording is a model of legal caution but it goes far d´Ivoire a few weeks after a group of UN
beyond that contained in the Summit Outcome peacekeepers had been killed in a rebel ambush and
document on R2P. Most importantly, it gives a then to newly-independent South Sudan.
Chapter VII mandate to missions so that they can use
force to carry out ´protection´ tasks. The following POC is quite distinct from the R2P doctrine. As the
year the UN published its Report of the Panel on UN Secretary General’s report Responsibility to
United Nations Peace Operations (the Brahimi protect: timely and decisive response, of July 2012
Report), which explicitly stated that UN noted, ‘While the work of peacekeepers may
peacekeepers: contribute to the achievement of R2P goals, the two
concepts of the responsibility to protect and the
must be able to carry out their mandate professionally protection of civilians have separate and distinct
and successfully. This means that United Nations prerequisites and objectives’ (INTERNATIONAL
military units must be capable of defending COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE
themselves, other mission components and the SOVEREIGNTY, 2001, para. 16). A briefing from the
mission’s mandate. Rules of engagement should not Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, in
limit contingents to stroke-for-stroke responses but 2009, also explained:
should allow ripostes sufficient to silence a source of
deadly fire that is directed at United Nations troops Open debates on POC have indeed been the only
or at the people they are charged to protect. occasions within the formal [Security] Council agenda
to reflect on the development of the R2P norm and its
(UNITED NATIONS, 2000, para. 49) practice. Yet the sensitivities around the inclusion of
R2P within the protection of civilians’ agenda have
.Similar language to the UNAMSIL resolution has increased in recent months. There are concerns that
since appeared in the mandates of other UN the POC agenda is being needlessly politicized by the
peacekeeping missions and there are now over introduction of R2P into the Council’s work and
100,000 soldiers deployed in the field in POC- resolutions on the protection of civilians, as those who
mandated missions. POC is also now debated at an seek to roll back the 2005 endorsement of R2P raise
open bi-annual session of the Security Council and questions about the protection of civilians in the
this has resulted in a steady stream of statements, attempt to challenge hard-won consensus reached on
resolutions and reports (HOLT; TAYLOR, 2009; both issues.
DEPARTMENT OF PEACEKEEPING
OPERATIONS/DEPARTMENT OF FIELD SUPPORT, (GLOBAL CENTRE FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
2010a, 2010b; 2010c; 2010d, 2010e). When the PROTECT, 2009).
Security Council revised the mandate of the UN
mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) The main textual differences between POC and R2P
in 2007 it stated that ‘the protection of civilians must are that the latter appears to be only intended to
be given a priority in decisions about the use of protect people against certain specified ‘mass crimes’
available capacity and resources’ (UNITED NATIONS, and when the State in which they are taking place is
2007, para. 5). Security Council mandates have ‘manifestly failing’ to do so (GLOBAL CENTRE FOR
become increasingly detailed in spelling out the tasks THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2009). This
of UN peacekeeping missions, yet most have makes it considerably narrower in scope than a POC
continued to use a similar set of formulations and mandate, which provides protection to all ‘civilians
language regarding the POC-related tasks. under imminent threat of physical violence’, subject
to the conditions discussed above. However, R2P also
We presented the first draft of the training package remains associated in many minds both with the
to all the African field missions at a seminar in the non-UN Security Council sanctioned military action
UN base in Entebbe in March 2011. undertaken by NATO during the Kosovo crisis and
previous debates surrounding the legality of
‘humanitarian interventions’.

PAGE 30
POC changes the debate about the UN’s While the UN has occasionally used its Chapter VII
responsibilities to protect people in complex powers to authorise interventions in internal
emergencies in a number of ways. Most obviously, conflicts involving widespread violations of human
the implementation of a POC mandate will require rights and humanitarian law, previous mandates all
missions to reassess the rules of engagement that grounded themselves on threats to international
they give to their soldiers and the powers of arrest peace and security, if only through the potentially
and detention of the international military and police destabilizing impact of a refugee crisis on the wider
deployments. region.

5. Conclusion One could argue that there is nothing in the Charter

to prevent the Security Council declaring any
situation a threat to international peace and security,
Peacekeeping soldiers have often been criticised for which, therefore unlocks its Chapter VII powers. This
their reluctance to open fire when civilians around has already happened in relation to international
them are being threatened, but clearly such life and terrorism, allowing the Security Council to make
death decisions cannot be taken lightly or in the extradition demands, impose travel bans and seize
absence of a clear legal regime. What exactly the assets of named individuals. However, given the
constitutes an ‘imminent threat’ and should this be primacy of the UN Charter over other international
based on the rules of international human rights law treaties, including human rights conventions, this has
or the, more permissive, laws of armed conflict? Most worrying implications.
mission mandates clearly state the primary of the
host State government responsibility to protect its The blanket legal immunities with which UN missions
own people, but what happens when it is these forces cover themselves has also prevented courts from
that constitute the most serious threat to them? allowing the people that these have been sent to
What is the status of the peacekeepers themselves? serve holding them accountable for the most basic
How can UN commanders exercise effective control human rights issues. The European Court of Human
over their own forces given that disciplinary issues Rights has declared alleged violations of the right to
are the exclusive preserve of troop contributing life and freedom from arbitrary detention by the UN
countries and these often also impose national mission in Kosovo inadmissible, while the UN mission
caveats over where, when and how their soldiers can in Haiti stated that a compensation claim brought on
be deployed? How should UN peacekeepers deal with behalf of victims of a cholera outbreak in Haiti was
people who have been indicted by the International ‘not receivable’ (UNITED NATIONS, 2013), despite the
Criminal Court? fact that its own Special Envoy to Haiti had already
publicly admitted that peacekeepers were the likely
The answers to these questions are not obvious and cause of the disease, which has so far claimed more
confronting them takes UN missions into new and than 7,000 lives (DOYLE, 2012).
uncertain areas. Unlike R2P, it does not start from a
position that the UN is ‘obliged’ to intervene in For all the drawbacks in allowing individual States to
humanitarian crises. Indeed the Brahimi Report quite act as judge, jury and executioner, in carrying out
explicitly states that: ‘There are many tasks which ‘humanitarian interventions’, most of these at least
United Nations peacekeeping forces should not be have clear lines of legal and political accountability
asked to undertake and many places they should not by which their actions can be challenged. UN
go’ (UNITED NATIONS. 2000, para. 1). However, the missions by contrast are often responding to the
notion that the UN can use Chapter VII mandates to problems they encounter through improvisation in
protect individuals in purely internal conflicts the field, limited resources and in areas of opaque
involves a significant reappraisal of its powers under and still largely unexplored law.
international law.
The oft-asserted, but empirically unsupported,
As well as prohibiting the unilateral use of force; truism, that the main reason for a failure to end mass
article 2 of the Charter also specifically prohibits atrocities has been a ‘lack of political will’ is
intervention by the UN in ‘matters which are sometimes relied upon by advocates of ‘humanitarian
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any intervention’ to argue that the UN Security Council
State’ (UNITED NATIONS, 1945, art. 2) but ‘this should not have the last word on authorising such
principle shall not prejudice the application of actions. Its critics point that the body is neither
enforcement measures under Chapter VII’ (UNITED democratic nor representative and argue that its
NATIONS, 1945, principle 7). This Chapter contains no vetoes – and potential vetoes – may have prevented
reference to human rights or humanitarian law, or interventions which could have saved lives. While the
indeed the protection of civilians, and is specifically former claim strengthens long-standing arguments
related to the preservation of international peace and for UN reform, the latter belongs to the ‘what if’
security. school of history.

PAGE 31
Powerful members of the UN, or those will powerful Where new thinking is required is not whether
friends, will continue to get away with murder international law should be ‘reformed’, to make it
because that is the reality of the world balance of easier for States to invade one another, but on how
power. This should not stop human rights we apply existing principles for a world in which
organisations from documenting and denouncing States increasingly act extraterritorially and through
violations wherever they occur or humanitarian transnational actors. No one who has seen a
organisations attempting to get access to areas massacre up close would argue with the proposition
where they can alleviate the suffering. of international intervention to save lives. But we still
need to discuss how we can tame the Leviathan that
we wish to create.

PAGE 32
R2P: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME NEVER
COMES
CATHERINE RENSHAW, THE INTERPRETER (2021)

In May, the United Nations General Assembly passed In 2005, an Independent Commission on Intervention
a resolution to include an item about “the and State Sovereignty answered Annan’s question in
Responsibility to Protect” on the Assembly’s annual a report authored by a constellation of eminent
agenda. On one view, the resolution is not a big deal. political figures, including Australia’s former foreign
There are more than 100 standing items on the minister Gareth Evans, Michael Ignatieff, who went
annual agenda, on topics ranging from on to become Canada’s opposition leader, South
counterterrorism to sport for development and African politician and current president Cyril
peace. Ramaphosa, and former Philippine president Fidel
Ramos. The report concluded that military
The UN Secretary-General has produced a report on intervention to prevent large-scale loss of life and
the Responsibility to Protect, also known as R2P, ethnic cleansing was justified, as a last resort, when
every year since 2009. Nonetheless, supporters of states failed in their most basic duty to protect their
R2P viewed Resolution 75/L.82 as a major triumph. own populations. The Commission concluded that
R2P sceptics viewed it with dismay. This is because in states seeking to intervene should seek Security
the topsy-turvy world of international law, Council authorisation; and that the Permanent Five
resolutions are like magical spells. If enough states members of the Council, who hold veto power,
say the same thing enough times, words can should not obstruct the passage of resolutions for
sometimes become reality. military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

The problem with a reality that includes R2P is that Following the outcomes of the 2005 UN World
no one is sure what it looks like. There has been Summit, these principles eventually became cast into
forceful advocacy for its implementation on several three “pillars”:
occasions, but only once has the principle been Every state has a responsibility to protect its
applied. populations from four mass atrocity crimes:
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity
The principle of R2P was developed in the early and ethnic cleansing.
2000s, in the wake of genocides in Rwanda and The wider international community has the
Serbia. Those atrocities called into serious question responsibility to encourage and assist individual
the capacity of the United Nations to fulfil its most states in meeting that responsibility.
basic post–Second World War mandate – to preserve If a state is manifestly failing to protect its
peace and prevent the destruction of entire peoples. populations, the international community must
In Rwanda, UN representatives were on the ground be prepared to take appropriate collective action,
before the massacres began and gave clear warnings in a timely and decisive manner, in accordance
about which way the winds of atrocity were blowing. with the UN Charter.
In Serbia, genocide took place under the watch –
literally – of UN peacekeeping forces. When NATO Gone was the earlier suggestion that intervention
forces intervened in Kosovo to prevent widespread without Security Council authorisation might be
death and destruction, they were accused of permissible in circumstances where the Council
breaching the UN Charter by using force without failed to act in a timely way. Gone also was the
Security Council approval. suggestion that the five permanent members of the
Security Council should refrain from exercising their
Against this backdrop, then–Secretary-General Kofi veto in humanitarian cases.
Annan in March 2000 asked this question in what
came to be known as the Millennium Report: “If Libya remains the only case where R2P has been
humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an implemented. In February 2011, Muammar Gaddafi
unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we responded to anti-government protests by
respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and proclaiming he would “cleanse Libya house by house”
systematic violations of human rights that affect of protestors and that his supporters should attack
every precept of our common humanity?” the “cockroaches” who were demonstrating against
his rule.

PAGE 33
In what Gareth Evans described as a “textbook case
of the R2P norm working exactly as it was supposed
to”, the Security Council authorised the use of force
by NATO to prevent mass murder in Benghazi.

In Syria three years later, when President Bashar al-

Assad made similar threats to quell the Arab Spring
by murdering his own population and then used
chemical weapons in a suburb in Damascus, there
was a view that military intervention might do more
harm than good. Regardless, there is little doubt
Russia would have used its veto in the Security
Council against any such proposition.

Most recently, the beleaguered state of Myanmar has

emerged as a potential site for R2P intervention. On 1
February, a military coup overthrew the elected
government of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the
National League for Democracy. The people of
Myanmar responded with widespread and peaceful
protests. They were met with machine-gun fire, mass
arrests and the death of more than 700 civilians.
Again, Evans described the situation as one that
“unequivocally demands the application of R2P
principles”. Once again, however, there were serious
impediments to the principle’s implementation. How
could military intervention be effective in a country
that is bigger than France, and that lies between
China and India? Why would India and China, both
sitting on the Security Council, agree to intervention
when both sell arms to Myanmar’s military?

While critics of R2P point to inconsistency, hypocrisy

and the likelihood of economic rather than
humanitarian reasons underpinning the application
of R2P, its proponents point to the fact that the
principle stands for more than intervention. It is,
they argue, a reminder to states they have a
responsibility to protect their populations, rather
than slaughter them. And it is a reminder to the
international community that it has a responsibility
to help states fulfil their obligations.

The problem is that when these reminders matter

most, they are least likely to be heeded – we can
reference here Myanmar’s generals and its closest
neighbours. Resolution 75/L.82 will not change this
reality. It will sit on the annual agenda of the UN
General Assembly like “the Question of Cyprus” and
“the situation in Afghanistan” – as a recurring sign of
the noble reach but limited grasp of the United
Nations.

PAGE 34