Responsibility to Proterct(R2P): The

Afghanistan Situation

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a concept established by the United Nations in 2005,
which asserts that the international community has a responsibility to prevent genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. It underscores the principle that
sovereignty is not absolute and that states have a responsibility to protect their populations
from mass atrocities. However, when states are unable or unwilling to fulfil this
responsibility, the international community has a duty to intervene, including through
diplomatic, humanitarian, and, in extreme cases, military means.
The Responsibility to Protect rests upon three pillars of equal standing: the responsibility of
each State to protect its populations (pillar I); the responsibility of the international
community to assist States in protecting their populations (pillar II); and the responsibility of
the international community to protect when a State is manifestly failing to protect its
populations (pillar III). The adoption of the principle in 2005 constituted a solemn
commitment, which included much expectation of a future free of these crimes.
Challenges
It is unquestionable that despite the progress made, we remain far from the objective
envisaged in 2005. Deeply worrying developments over the last few years threaten to widen
the gap between the commitment expressed by Heads of State and Government and the daily
reality confronted by populations around the world.
There is a range of situations today where populations are at risk of the RtoP crimes, or where
such crimes are ongoing. These crises are taking place against a backdrop of retreating
internationalism, diminishing respect for international humanitarian and human rights law,
political disunity in key decision-making bodies such as the Security Council, and a level of
defeatism about promoting ambitious agendas like protection.
We have been witnessing an alarming disregard for fundamental tenets of international law.
In many of the armed conflicts that have ignited in recent years, parties to the conflict are
consciously violating international humanitarian law; we are seeing widespread and flagrant
attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected
persons, including humanitarian and health-care workers.
It is a sobering fact that despite the emergence of brutal, non-state armed groups, the most
serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, which could amount to
atrocity crimes, are still committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States.
Likewise, Governments are failing to hold perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable for
their actions. At the international level, some States parties to the Rome Statute, by which the
International Criminal Court was established, are not cooperating with the Court, or even
taking steps to withdraw from the Statute to avoid investigation and prosecution of atrocity
crimes. The Security Council is increasingly reluctant to refer situations to the Court, and
some political leaders are clearly seeking immunity from legal accountability.
Opportunities
Any honest assessment requires us to face the grim reality described above. At the same time,
we must also consider other elements that point in a positive direction. Much has been
achieved since 2005.
First, it is clear from our engagement with Member States, and from the annual informal
dialogues in the General Assembly on the responsibility to protect, that there is consensus on
many core elements of the principle. There is agreement that prevention is at the core of
RtoP; that efforts to assist States in fulfilling their protection responsibilities should respect
the principle of national ownership; that any collective international action should employ the
full range of diplomatic, political and humanitarian measures; and that military force should
be considered only as a measure of last resort.
Second, all the key intergovernmental bodies of the United Nations have deliberated on and
referred to the responsibility to protect, and in some cases passed both thematic and country-
specific resolutions related to the principle. The Security Council has referred to RtoP in
more than 50 resolutions and presidential statements. The Human Rights Council has
referenced the principle in a number of resolutions, most recently the 30 September 2016
resolution on transitional justice. Moreover, the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes
developed by the Office of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the
Responsibility to Protect has been issued as an official United Nations document,
disseminated and used both within and beyond the Organization, assisting the tasks of early
warning and early action.
And third, we have seen the development of regional and global networks of focal points on
the responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide and atrocity crimes over the past
decade, which can support the development of the national and regional architecture needed
to implement this principle and encourage the sharing of good practices and expertise. There
are cross-regional Groups of Friends of RtoP in New York and Geneva with more than 50
members. There are also important initiatives underway to raise awareness among legislators
and parliamentarians about the responsibility to protect. This is crucial work that must be
supported.
Applying the concept of R2P to the Afghanistan crisis involves several complexities:
1. Applicability: The Afghanistan crisis presents a challenging case for the application
of R2P due to its complex geopolitical dynamics and history of intervention. While
the Taliban's past atrocities and human rights abuses may warrant international
intervention to protect civilians, the principle of state sovereignty complicates matters.
Afghanistan is a sovereign state, and any intervention must be conducted with the
consent of its government or authorized by the United Nations Security Council.
2. Prevention vs Intervention: R2P emphasizes prevention as the primary goal,
advocating for early action to address potential crises before they escalate into mass
atrocities. However, in the case of Afghanistan, intervention has been a recurrent
theme due to the ongoing conflict and the failure of the Afghan government to protect
its citizens effectively. Balancing the need for prevention with the risks and
complexities of intervention is a significant challenge.
 3. Geopolitical Interests: The intersection of state sovereignty and geopolitical interests
complicates efforts to implement R2P effectively. In Afghanistan, various regional
and global actors have vested interests, including strategic, economic, and security
concerns. These interests can influence decisions regarding intervention and
complicate efforts to coordinate a unified response among international actors.
4. Capacity and Resources: Implementing R2P requires significant resources, including
diplomatic, humanitarian, and military capabilities. In the case of Afghanistan,
challenges such as security threats, logistical constraints, and the limited capacity of
international organizations may hinder effective intervention efforts. Additionally, the
long-term commitment required for stabilization and reconstruction efforts poses
practical challenges for sustaining international engagement.
5. Risk of Escalation: Military intervention, especially in conflict zones like
Afghanistan, carries the risk of unintended consequences and further escalation of
violence. The use of force must be carefully calibrated to minimize harm to civilians
and adhere to international humanitarian law principles. Moreover, there is a risk that
intervention may exacerbate existing tensions and deepen divisions within Afghan
society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Responsibility to Protect offers a compelling framework for
addressing mass atrocities and protecting civilians, its application to the Afghanistan crisis is
fraught with challenges. Navigating the complexities of state sovereignty, geopolitical
interests, and practical considerations requires careful deliberation and collaboration among
the international community. Ultimately, effective implementation of R2P in Afghanistan
hinges on striking a balance between prevention, intervention, and respect for the sovereignty
and dignity of the Afghan people.