Α. GENERAL REMARKS
The widespread humanitarian disasters that hit Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo over the last decade of the 20th century, as well as the different and concurrently controversial reaction in each case* on the part of the international community to crises that caused dramatic incidents in these regions led to the emergence of a new political perception, resulting from the concern of member states of the international system as to their responsibility to intervene and prevent humanitarian disasters.
This perception is known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and is fundamentally based on the extent of the responsibility of states to take action in order to protect populations – within a state – under threat of starvation, mass displacement or being wiped out due to any of a number of causes (civil war, state failure, prolonged instability, repression). The sine qua non condition for raising the prospect of a humanitarian intervention is a state’s established failure or unwillingness to restore stability in its territory in order to avert the negative impact on the population living within its borders.
Β. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – BASIC PRINCIPLES
In 1999, during the proceedings of the 54th UN General Assembly, the then UN Secretary General – wanting to show that the past reaction to crises did not resolve the issue – called upon member states to reflect on their responsibility vis-a-vis mass violations of human rights in countries hit by civil wars and to work towards finding a solution in order to avert humanitarian disasters.
The following year, Canada set up an Expert Group which would look into the matter. The Group published its findings in 2001, providing a detailed analysis of the definitions and principles linked with the implementation and practical issues relating to the Responsibility to Protect.
In 2005, the World Summit Outcome document became the legal basis of the Responsibility to Protect, recognizing the responsibility of states and of the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Particular emphasis should be put on the reference to the eventuality of collective action pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter if a states fails to prevent the abovementioned crimes. In 2006, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1674 confirming the need to implement the “Responsibility to Protect”.
Although the need to take action to avert humanitarian disasters is indisputable, the main question that has been a catalyst for the dialogue on the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect revolves around the need to safeguard state sovereignty*** as the inviolable principle of international law, so as to avoid any misinterpretations as to its significance.
As a result, efforts are being made to predetermine in a clear manner the criteria that would enable the enactment of the R2P. So, for example, when human losses constitute the crime of genocide, whose prohibition is a jus cogens, and given that a state has failed or is not willing to find a solution, then the possibility of an intervention to restore domestic peace will be examined. The basic conditions for a successful outcome are: the definition of clear objectives for humanitarian missions, the delimitation of the rules of engagement and cooperation with the state’s authorities confirming the need for intervention.
Of equal importance is the issue of Post-Conflict Rehabilitation and Capacity Building in a particular state where a humanitarian operation has been carried out. This task can be undertaken by the UN Peacebuilding Commission and similar content could be included in the mandates of Peacekeeping Missions.
The current trend governing the general concern regarding threats to international security and destabilising factors in a particular state’s territory puts particular emphasis on prevention, and thus the responsibility to prevent gains greater significance depending on the political or military cost as the corollary of a humanitarian intervention. Most UN and EU political texts dealing with the fight against current threats put particular emphasis on early detection and warning and the conditions for state failure or the absence of government within a state, resulting in its failure to protect its population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
* In the case of Rwanda, the members of the UN Security Council did not reach agreement on taking action and, in the long-term, this resulted in the destabilization of the wider Great Lakes region. Also, the problematic planning of the operation in Somalia destroyed this country’s political and economic fabric, resulting in the state’s failure over the last 15 years and the well-known consequences, not least the gradual emergence of piracy networks.
** Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome document.
*** The principle of sovereign equality of states is enshrined in article 2.1 of the UN Charter.
Last Updated: December 2008