The 20th century was marked by mass murder and crime to humanity, such as genocide, war crime, and ethnic cleansing, resulting in tens of millions of deaths throughout the world. While the objective ...of establishing the United Nations in 1945 aimed at preventing such crimes, mass murders kept on occurring, as the cases in Bosnia and Rwanda in 1990s. The responsibility to protect (R2P) concept emerged as a response to these failures, by proposing that the sovereignty of a country should be based on the responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than the right to take actions without any intervention from the international world. This research aims at exploring the R2P concept as an attempt to protect human rights in the international humanitarian law context by analyzing the relevant literature and legal norms to discover how this concept can be the basis for protecting human rights under conflict situation and four mass violations of human rights. It used normative legal research method based on international law framework. Two approaches were used, namely conceptual and comparative ones. The research results indicated that R2P concept was the best alternative for humanitarian intervention to protect mankind from such crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In an intra-country conflict, the international community was responsible through preventive and military intervention attempts. The R2P concept was also relevant in international humanitarian law since it gave a clear framework in protecting human rights and preventing mass crimes, especially in relation to the use of military power.
Beginning with the negotiations that concluded with the unanimous
adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948, and
...extending to the present day, the United States, Soviet
Union/Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France have put forth
great effort to ensure that they will not be implicated in the
crime of genocide. If this were to fail, they have also ensured
that holding any of them accountable for genocide will be
practically impossible. By situating genocide prevention in a
system of territorial jurisdiction; by excluding protection for
political groups and acts constituting cultural genocide from the
Genocide Convention; by controlling when genocide is meaningfully
named at the Security Council; and by pointing the responsibility
to protect in directions away from any of the P-5, they have
achieved what can only be described as practical impunity for
genocide. The Politics of Genocide is the first book to
explicitly demonstrate how the permanent member nations have
exploited the Genocide Convention to isolate themselves from the
reach of the law, marking them as "outlaw states."
After the Holocaust, the world vowed it would never again stand by and permit such heinous crimes against humanity. Yet many subsequent atrocities have gone unchecked, all over the world: from the ...killing fields of Cambodia, to Rwanda, and to Srebrenica. The bloody list continues to grow, led by the unfolding nightmare in Darfur. How and why were the world's best intentions derailed, and what can be done today to put these efforts back on track? The "responsibility to protect: - R2P for short - was unanimously embraced at the UN World Summit in 2005. The heart of this new international norm is the belief that if sovereign governments fail to protect their own people from mass atrocity crimes, then responsibility shifts to the wider international community to take whatever action is appropriate, including (in extreme cases) the use of force. The world cannot, and will not, just stand by. Evens spells out the steps needed to make R2P work in practice and clarifies the misunderstandings, real or contrived, which persist about its scope and limits. He emphasizes the need for preventive action, and for preferring assistance and persuasion to coercion, but he also makes clear when it is right to fight. The book is enlivened throughout by real world examples, analyses of current events, and assessments drawn from the author's own vast experience.
Sovereignty, concerning state authority, endows the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the rights of citizens. This redefined and broadened scope of sovereignty is ascribed to the international norm of ...the R2P. The pioneering assertions of R2P were conceptualized by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in ‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty’ after NATO intervened in Kosovo (1999). During a humanitarian crisis, the more serious concern lies in the unchecked systematic violations of human rights rather than the question of the legitimacy and legality of intervention by the international community. In the 2005 World Summit, Sovereignty was redefined as an R2P by the state against atrocious violations of human rights. In case of failure of the host state, the international community could intervene through the Security Council. This paper will implicitly consider the normative contours of the R2P framework while assessing the current multifaceted humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The post-war humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is characterized by poverty and internal displacement. Additionally, human security concerns arise from the inter-group rivalry between the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) and the Taliban, accompanied by human rights violations against women and ethnic minorities under the Taliban regime. Aligning with the first pillar, the responsibility to protect Afghan citizens rests with the Taliban as the sovereign authority of the state. However, internalizing the principles of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can pave the way for prospective peace in Afghanistan.
Many postcolonial or critical scholars are rather sceptical of the Responsibility to Protect principle. In most of the critical literature, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is presented as a product ...from the West, whose liberal ideal relies on a perception of Southern states being potentially dysfunctional, which in turn justifies an interventionist discourse with neocolonial overtones. The problem with this interpretation of R2P is that it essentially ignores non-Western, particularly Southern, inputs on the concept, falling precisely into the trap that, many authors claim, vitiates Responsibility to Protect: its West-centrism. Building upon a mix of critical, decolonial, postcolonial and Third World Approaches to International Law scholarship, this article proposes a number of additional steps to decolonize R2P in an effort to avoid what Pinar Bilgin describes as ‘conflating the critiques of the particularity of universals with critiques of the idea of having universals’. What successive decolonizing layers expose is a negotiation process in which the agency of states from the global South in shaping the – still controversial – principle has proved particularly obvious. Decolonizing Responsibility to Protect, this article argues, requires critical scholars to engage in a contrapuntal analysis in order to acknowledge the concept’s mutual constitution by the West and the ‘rest’ and the deeper struggles over universals hiding underneath.
This paper will study about ASEAN’s role on the conflict in Myanmar, specifically Rohingya ethnical conflicts in 2017-2019. In its development, this conflict turns out to be far from over and ASEAN ...as the regional organization of South-East Asia should take the responsibility to solve this conflict. This paper will be reviewed using descriptive qualitative approach that is based on secondary data sources. Those data sources include academic journals, books, printed and online articles, and also other relevant sources. We concluded that the involvement of ASEAN in solving the conflict in Rohingya was because the responsibility of ASEAN to protect the countries in their region. In the effort to solve the conflict of Rohingya, ASEAN never wandered off the human rights principles. Meanwhile, in the process, ASEAN was assisted by Indonesia to approach it through soft diplomacy and by the United Nations (UN) through the concept of “Responsibility to Protect”. On the other hand, ASEAN also have a special team called ASEAN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (AHA). This team was specifically assigned in Rakhine and making 4 (four) recommendations according physical security, materials security, Rohingya registration, and social unification to prevent the recurrence of horizontal conflict in Myanmar.
The idea that states and the international community have a responsibility to protect populations at risk has framed internationalist debates about conflict prevention, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping ...and territorial administration since 2001. This book situates the responsibility to protect concept in a broad historical and jurisprudential context, demonstrating that the appeal to protection as the basis for de facto authority has emerged at times of civil war or revolution - the Protestant revolutions of early modern Europe, the bourgeois and communist revolutions of the following centuries and the revolution that is decolonisation. This analysis, from Hobbes to the UN, of the resulting attempts to ground authority on the capacity to guarantee security and protection is essential reading for all those seeking to understand, engage with, limit or critique the expansive practices of international executive action authorised by the responsibility to protect concept.
The 1990s saw a systemic shift from the liberal post–World War II international order of liberal multilateralism (LIO I) to a post–Cold War international order of postnational liberalism (LIO II). ...LIO II has not been only rule-based but has openly pursued a liberal social purpose with a significant amount of authority beyond the nation-state. While postnational liberal institutions helped increase overall well-being globally, they were criticized for using double standards and institutionalizing state inequality. We argue that these institutional features of the postnational LIO II led to legitimation problems, which explain both the current wave of contestations and the strategies chosen by different contestants. We develop our argument first by mapping the growing liberal intrusiveness of international institutions. Second, we demonstrate the increased level and variety of contestations in international security and international refugee law. We show that increased liberal intrusiveness has led to a variety of contestation strategies, the choice of which is affected by the preference of a contestant regarding postnational liberalism and its power within the contested institution.
PDF
