The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is a United Nations (UN) initiative which was created to prevent the act of genocide (United Nations, 2014. pg. 1). According to the guidelines, states must maintain the utmost duty to halt and pre...
... middle of paper ...
...doctrine has been the topic of controversy and debate since its creation shortly after the Rwandan genocide. Many nations hoped it would end tragedies, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust, forever. While it has good intentions, the terms of the document are far too unrealistic as it calls for members of the international community to intervene and become bound by it. The international community will not feel obligated to act especially in cases where their political ideals conflict with the task at hand. Furthermore, states will also hold different views on how to resolve the issue. A doctrine could be favoured by states that could benefit from the outcome, such as America’s plan to use force as opposed to Russia’s idea of leaving the Syrians to their own devices. Conclusively, the R2P doctrine will remain and divide nations for many decades to come.
The physical and mental intent to destroy another being often unveils the darkest side of human nature. In the memoir, “An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography” dedicated to the Rwandan genocide, war hero Paul Rusesabagina states: “A sad truth of human nature is that it is hard to care for people when they are abstractions, hard to care when it is not you or somebody close to you. Unless the world community can stop finding ways to dither in the face of this monstrous threat to humanity those words never again will persist in being one of the most abused phrases in the English language and one of the greatest lies of our time.” The United Nations promised never again would they allow genocide to occur after the Second World War. Unfortunately, less
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
Conflicts growing out of the mistaken belief that the other side is expansionist will be less frequent. Second, status-quo states will obtain advance warning when others plan aggression… The third beneficial consequence of a difference between offensive and defensive weapons is that if all states support the status-quo, an obvious arms control agreement is a ban on weapons that are useful for
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
When a group feels as if their existence is threatened by another group, the only solution to their problem is the extermination of the opposing group. Genocide is also used to carry out systematic efforts in destroying enemies which will send out warning to other potential enemies. Acquiring economic wealth by destroying a group which stands in the way of that benefit is also another reason genocide is carried out. Finally, to create a “pure race” which means everyone practices the same way, follows the same culture, and the group who does not fit the guidelines, will be exterminated. The Center on Law and Globalization is a charitable organization which presents news about devastating problems in countries across the world. Its authors are reporters and journalist who experience firsthand the problems these countries are facing. In the article, Why Do Genocides Occur? Published by the Center on Law and Globalization, the conditions under which genocide usually occurs includes: when the victims are excluded, which means they have lost their citizenship and denied their rights, in crisis, when their government is in ruins, or in a dictatorial
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The responsibility to protect is a states responsibly to protect their own citizens, but when they become unwilling to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the society of states (Baylis, Smith, Owens 480). In the article Samantha Power, the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urged Obama to endorse in the doctrine responsibility to protect. She believed power to be a partisan of the doctrine responsibility to protect (Goldberg 3). Obama announced that we recognize the killing of one thousand people which included innocent children through the use of a weapon. His statement mentioned the killings were through the use of a weapon that shouldn’t be used in war in which 98 or 99 percent of humanity says so also. If no action is taken, he stated that we would only be sending a signal that international norm doesn’t mean much and acknowledged this as a danger to our national society (Goldberg 9). Related to the doctrine responsibility to protect are human right norms in which president Obama pointed out were
Various schools of thought exist as to why genocide continues at this deplorable rate and what must be done in order to uphold our promise. There are those who believe it is inaction by the international community which allows for massacres and tragedies to occur - equating apathy or neutrality with complicity to evil. Although other nations may play a part in the solution to genocide, the absolute reliance on others is part of the problem. No one nation or group of nations can be given such a respo...
The Treaty of Versailles is an example of how the neglect of principles proposed by the Catholic Church, namely social restoration, just accords, long-term security and physical reconstruction, can lead to lasting global repercussions and future wars. The sanctions were enforced in the hope of slowing German recovery and eliminating future conflict. However, the United States didn’t sign this treaty because we recognized that it didn’t give the Germans a fair deal or promote long-term security (Treaty).
Scheffer, David J. "Responding To Genocide And Crimes Against Humanity." U.S. Department Of State Dispatch 9.4 (1998): 20. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
Thus, he argues the need for IR analysis of genocide through a historical and sociological approach, in order to fully capture its complex, multi layered, and dynamic nature (Shaw 664). Furthermore, the concept of genocide is stripped, revealing its place in a complex set of international, military, political, cultural, and legal trends (Shaw 646). Shaw continues this discourse by arguing for the consideration of other groups, such as partisanship and social class, as to relieve genocide’s restrictive nature in order to go beyond ethnic, national, racial, and religious groups (649). Finally, Shaw’s main argument is that, “international relations are central for understanding the structural contexts which generate genocidal relations” which speaks to the fluidity of genocidal actors’ movement across interstate and state-society relations, in addition to the call for a comprehensive, multilayered, dynamic, non state-centric approach to IR and genocide
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
All of us know about the crimes committed every day by people all over the world. Theft, assault, grand theft auto, underage drinking, fraud, prostitution, and rape. But what about crimes on the internet? Last year, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was introduced to the world. If this bill was passed, many sites would have to censor certain pieces of information, as well as remove a lot of the content already uploaded. SOPA would also crack down on terminating torrent sites, which are used to share files such as music, movies, video games, e-books, and whatever else is a digital file. In my opinion, SOPA should not be passed due to the fact that censoring information on the internet is an act against the first amendment. SOPA should not be passed due to the fact that it goes against the first amendment and will lead to a corrupt information sharing system.
Print. The. Hymowitz, Sarah, and Amelia Parker. " Lessons - The Genocide Teaching Project - Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law." American University, Washington College of Law. American UniversityWashington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, 2011.