Emerged in the early 21st century, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was designed to end most severe acts of human right violations. It seeks to address such extreme cases in ways considered legitimate and legal. The R2P doctrine was then formalized in 2005 as per the United Nations World Summit held in the same year (Mardiyanto & Hidayatulloh, 2023). The 2005 World Summit Outcome Document articulated that each state has the responsibility to protect its citizens from extreme cases of violence which include but not limited to genocide, ethnic cleansing and crime against humanity, and war crimes. In case a state has failed to uphold this commitment, the international communities have the right to intervene, which can be achieved through diplomatic, economic as well as the military means as the last recourse.
The 1990s interventions in African countries such as Rwanda, Somali, Kosovo, and Bosnia demonstrated the commitment if the international communities to put an end to genocide, mass crimes as well as ethical cleaning (Šimonović, 2016). Various interventions utilized varied on their success. Others were more successful than others highlighting the need to reconsider options before deciding on which humanitarian intervention to utilize. From the period of the post-Cold war, the world has been more prepared to deal and avert mass atrocities through various humanitarian interventions. As a form of humanitarian intervention, the R2P has been effective in addressing the severe cases of violence and persecution in different parts of the world. The R2P has completely reshaped the structure of the international humanitarian action but there has been challenges to its implementation thus raising doubts about its ability to respond to mass atrocities in different parts of the world.
R2P Doctrine’s History
After the 1990s mass atrocities in Rwanda and the Balkans, which the international communities were not able to intervene efficiently and the North Atlantic Treaty agency the (NATO) army intervention in Kosovo, which many noticed to be a violation of the ban on using force, there was a prime discussion on how to respond to human right violations going ahead. Submitting its annual record to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in September 1999, Koffi Annan, the secretary-general of the UN, challenged the Member States to “locate commonplace floor in upholding the standards of the charter, and appearing in defense of not unusual humanity” (United nations (UN), 2018).
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which was founded by the Canadian government, took on the task and at the end of 2001 released a report titled “The Responsibility to Protect.” Francis Deng’s concept of “State sovereignty as a responsibility” was the main inspiration of this idea. Deng’s concept reaffirmed that sovereignty is more than protection from outside interference as it also involve states having positive and constructive responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens as well as helping each other (Carter, 2019). This meant that the State itself bore the primary obligation for safeguarding its citizens. In 2005, the Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom: towards development, security, and human rights for all (A/59/2005) and the subsequent report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change supported the idea that state sovereignty carries with it the obligation of the State to protect its own people, and that if the State was unwilling and did not possess the capacity to do so, the international communities were responsible.
The international communities would utilize diplomacy among other humanitarian interventions to ensure that peace was restored in the impacted regions. In case of genocide and other severe cases of mass atrocities, the Security Council’s authorization under Chapter VII of the Charter is the only legal basis for using force for this purpose, according to both reports.
The concept of R2P, was formally approved by Member States in 2005 during the UN World Summit and included in the meeting’s outcome document (A/RES/60/1). Some of the initial aspects proposed by the ICISS were left out from the model that was ultimately authorized, but it still retains its essential components on the prevention and response to extreme forms of violence of international humanitarian law and human rights (UN, 2018).
The Three Pillars that Support R2P
The R2P is based on three equally important pillars which include the responsibility of each State to protect its citizens, the responsibility of the international community to help States in protecting their populations, and the responsibility of the international community to step in and protect populations in case a State is failing to do so (Krishnan, 2020).
Pillar I: The Responsibility of Each State to Protect its Citizens
As one of the three pillars of R2P, this pillar dictates that a state has the responsibility to protect its populations from mass atrocities. Protecting the citizens from genocide, ethnical cleansing, and mass crimes together with crimes against humanity is therefore a major responsibility of a state. Protecting include devising ways on how these crimes can be prevented from occurring. This pillar also has similar requirements calling on States to adopt adequate and proper response measures so that the four types of human rights violations are acted upon as necessary, whenever they occur (Barber, 2023).
Pillar 2: The Responsibility of the International Community to Help States in Protecting their Populations
The second pillar expressed by the R2P maintains that the international communities also have a responsibility to assist the states in their pursuits of protection requirements as regards mass atrocities. The wider international community can do so by referring to the state in the fulfilment of protection obligations (Dunford & Neu, 2019). The international communities could also supplement the existing and required resources, build the capacities of the respective state and country’s forces, and also share the best practices to ensure that there is peace in the affected state.
Pillar III: The Responsibility of the International Community to step in and Protect Populations in case a State if failing to do so
The third pillar of the R2P focuses on the duties of the international community to intervene and take multifaceted measures to assist in regard to problems within the states. Society must be ready to use, collectively, all measures allowed by the UN Charter in order to respond to the cases of mass atrocities fast and protect the population. This reminds me of the operations management principle that call for timely and compelled actions that help to support the needy states. The collective actions include diplomatic, economical plus military measures and the use of force as the last resort and as permitted by UN Security Council (Henderson, 2020).
Evaluating the Effectiveness and Limitations of R2P in Humanitarian Interventions
It is with the official sanction given to the R2P from 2005, the principle has become an instrumental approach to humanitarian intervention. It has influenced the architecture of the international humanitarian intervention to guarantee that safeguard of people from genocide has been given priority. The R2P has been used in establishing normative improvement around the globe which has been used in different occasions to advocate for intervention in situations where violence and persecution has taken root (Melling, 2018). This simply indicates that over the argument of state sovereignty to the unalienable right the policy of R2P has been very helpful in addressing mass atrocity issues every time a state is challenged. This has been applied in places like Libya, to demonstrate the desecration validity on issues to do with human rights violations.
A Case Study of R2P Implementation
The following are some of the examples in the application of R2P as a form of humanitarian interventionism. These are; Libya in 2011, and Côte d’Ivoire at the time of the mass atrocity in 2002 and 2010 in the first and second post-electoral civil wars respectively. In this section, we explore the case study of Libya in 2011 as one of the examples where R2P framework has been implemented before. In response to the events in the first Libyan Civil War, a multi-state coalition led by NATO initiated a military intervention in Libya on March 19, 2011, with the purpose of implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973) (Dembinski & Reinold, 2011).
The UN Security Council, which voted ten times in favor and five times against, sought an immediate cease fire in Libya including attacks against the civilians and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters. During the time, the attack against the civilians constituted of crime against humanity and thus qualified for intervention from the international community after the government failed to protect its citizens. A no-fly zone, where all the flights in the country’s airspace were banned was the strategy that NATO was imposed. While enforcing a naval blockade, the US and British naval troops fired about 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles (Wamulume et al., 2022). The Royal Canadian Air force, the British Royal Air force as well as the French Air force conducted sorties throughout Libya.
Apart from Special Forces, who were not included in the UN resolution, no foreign ground soldiers were utilized during the intervention. The initial coalition, which included Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and the United States, expanded to 19 states at the outset of the intervention, with help from more recent states mostly aimed at ensuring the action’s efficacy. With France and UK playing the major roles, the US shared commands to ensure that all the states involved were well informed on the plan.
NATO assumed command of the arms embargo on March 23 and dubbed it Operation Unified Protector. NATO also consented on March 24 to assume command of the no-fly zone, with coalition forces handling the ground forces. Since taking charge of the mission, NATO flew approximately 26,500 sorties (Watkin, 2020). After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, the fighting in Libya was concluded and NATO had to cease its operations in the country on October 31, 2011. The new government in Libya asked for an extension of its mission until the end of the year, but on October 27, the Security Council voted in favour of withdrawing NATO’s mandate for humanitarian intervention on October 31.
Effectiveness of R2P in Preventing and Responding to Human Rights Violations such as Mass Atrocities
Basing on various instances such as the one described of the Libya Case study, the effectiveness of the R2P framework can be examined. The R2P has ensured that the international norm concerning state sovereignty and human rights has been reshaped successfully. According to Bohm and Brown (2020), by prioritizing population protection over state-centric discourse, the R2P can be said to be an effective strategy for humanitarian intervention. This can be well illustrated by the wide spread approval of the R2P as the international norm for humanitarian intervention.
Using the three pillars of R2P, the effectiveness of R2P can also be assessed. In all the three pillars, the R2P framework clearly states responsibilities which when examined closely can be observed to prioritize protection of the citizens and are effective in responding to human rights violations which include mass atrocities. As observed by Jemirade (2021) and in response to effectiveness of the R2P framework, the R2P has undergone a lot of transformations since World War II (WWII). The author documents that since WWII, humanitarian interventions has experienced a number of transformations, and the reasons for it are always growing and changing due to the interventions carried out to end conflicts in regions such as Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and Kosovo, as well as the new paradigm that emerged in the wake of 9/11.
Basing the R2P among other current approaches of humanitarian intervention such as unauthorized interventions, R2P has been quite successful in most instances. Closely supported by the three pillars, the R2P framework purposes to create a more transparent code of behavior for humanitarian missions and to promoting a stronger dependence on non-military means thus an effective approach for humanitarian intervention (Carter, 2019).
From the Libya case study, the R2P framework has been found effective in responding to human rights violations. The Libya case study in most of the times is referred to when R2P intervention is mentioned. In relation to the Gaddafi regime’s brutal suppression of demonstrators, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, allowing “all necessary measures” to be taken to protect the people. Commanded by NATO, forces intervened to stop an impending massacre in Benghazi (Nahlawi, 2019). Regarding immediate civilian safety, this intervention is deemed successful, illustrating the potential of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in situations where there is global agreement. This is thus one of the notable example illustrating the effectiveness of R2P as a form of humanitarian intervention.
The R2P can be considered effective in preventing human rights violations. Since its formal implementation, the R2P has been effective in advocating for capacity building which is one of the ways of ensuring preparedness against human right violations such as mass atrocities. From the R2P framework, capacity building providing financial and technical assistance which guarantees robust and accountable institutions which will be able to provide good governance, a critical component of preventing human rights violations. Dembinski and Reinold (2011) asserted that the increased legal accountability by the international communities by the help of R2P has been significant in preventing mass atrocities.
The R2P framework has increased legal accountability and political costs by holding states accountable of human rights violations and the international community can go on to pursue cases against the state leaders. This has been effective in ensuring that states utilizes all means to prevent and effectively respond to mass atrocities as they arise. Through capacity building, the R2P also advocate for improvement of early warning mechanisms. States are urged to train and provide resources to help in collecting information which will be utilized in timely and effective response to human right violations whenever they arise (Watkin, 2020).
Limitations of R2P
The R2P framework faces challenges in preventing and responding to human right violations. One of the major limitation of this framework is that its sounding ideals are never fully realized in practice. As observed by Elcano Royal Institute (2024), the Security Council had the option to step in and halt genocide in Rwanda and other countries. The same reasons it did not are probably what will prevent it from doing so in the future. By being able to prevent mass atrocities in Libya, the R2P could also been effective in preventing and responding to human right violations in other regions such as Syria. In the same year, 2011, Syria faced tremendous civilians suffering from the country’s civil war. The sufferings called for R2P framework but the Security Council decided not to employ this approach. The conclusion of this is that the R2P framework is majorly influenced by political interests and power dynamics as compared to humanitarian intervention, thus challenging its effectiveness in preventing and responding to future mass atrocities (Elcano Royal Institute, 2024).
Holmes (2014) argues that the R2P has far too many inconsistencies and real-world issues to be taken seriously as a doctrine for US strategy to employ. The main argument for intervening against genocide or even ethnical cleaning is moral persuasion. This argument can be made without invoking convoluted discussions of purported international principles or even the legitimate goals of warfare, and it can be made without jeopardizing the crucial concept of national sovereignty. Following the inconsistencies, the framework can be seen to lack a comprehensive plan for post-intervention stability. Taking Libya as an example, the R2P intervention was successful but lacked the post-intervention strategy. After the intervention, conflicts and other forms of instabilities were observed in the country and this challenges the efficacy of the R2P framework.
The Changing Role of UN and International Community
Over time, the UN among other international communities have played a critical role during humanitarian intervention. The UN Security Council is observed as a crucial entity that is principally in charge of carrying out the international response, according to the R2P framework. Operationalizing and implementing the R2P framework stands as one major obligation of the UN as observed from World Summit Outcome Document on R2P. The text paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document clearly provides the role and mandate of the UN in R2P implementation (Nahlawi, 2019).
From the outcome document through Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, the UN is required to help protect populations from mass atrocities by using necessary humanitarian interventions. If the state fails to protect its populations and the peaceful options have been exhausted, the international community through the UN has a responsibility to step in and intervene in the state to protect the populations against extreme cases of violence. When assessing the previous years of the UN’s R2P implementation, three criteria emerge as being critical to whether the initiative is successful or unsuccessful. First, there should be no government obstruction of mass atrocities, or if there is any, an interested P5 country provides an effective political will to overcome the obstruction. Secondly, there must be cooperation between regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU) or neighbouring regional powers, and the UN Security Council for effective coordination of the R2P response given the specific crisis in each nation (Jemirade, 2021). Lastly, the Security Council has the ability to respond quickly to incidents of atrocity crimes. Basing on the three criteria, the UN and the international community has effectively implemented the R2P approach. This shows that the R2P has the potential for humanitarian intervention in future and thus can be successful if properly executed. The political interest and veto power of member states impede the effectiveness of this framework and thus efforts to bolster the UN’s ability to intervene is necessary.
In the recent past, there have been ongoing attempts to bolster the UN’s ability to intervene on behalf of humanitarians. These efforts will ensure improved effectiveness of the R2P framework through the UN and international community to intervene in times of mass atrocities. These efforts include reform of the Security Council. Some of the proposed reforms to bolster the UN’s ability to intervene in case of mass atrocities are such as constraining veto power (Jemirade, 2021).
According to the five permanent member states (P5) which include the US, UK, France, China, and Russia possess a lot of veto power which must be utilized effectively during cases of human right violations such as mass atrocities. These powers must be carefully exercised to ensure that mass atrocity cases are prevented and responded to on time. This is supported by the France initiative in response to humanitarian intervention, by Hubert Védrine, the foreign minister of France, who urged that the P5 should as much as possible refrain from using the veto power to obstruct humanitarian efforts, especially where it did not conflict with their own national interests (Šimonović, 2016). Through this initiative, the UN the political impasse has been avoided effectively. Prompt and decisive action to safeguard the populations has also been possible through such reforms.
The Security Council can also be expanded to ensure increased inclusivity. There have been efforts to ensure that more states are included in the council. Through this reform, the council would be more representative making more acceptable on the global political landscape. The inclusivity would guarantee emerging powers and balanced decision when it comes to implementing the R2P framework in different parts of the world (Holmes, 2014). By expanding the representation, the problem of selective application where the R2P framework is applied in some states and not the other would be solved as balanced as well as an equitable decision on when the framework will be utilized will be made by the member states.
Capacity building is another attempt to bolster the UN’s ability to intervene on behalf of humanitarians. Capacity building plays a critical role when addressing issues of human right violations cases. By building capacity of the national and regional actors, the UN’s ability is increased. This is following increased ability to identify and respond to human right violations such as mass atrocities (Krishnan, 2020). To build the capacity of the regional and national actors, there are ongoing efforts to provide training and resources which will improve how the states respond to mass atrocities. The early warning systems are also being implemented to act as an early alarm on how to prevent and effectively respond to mass atrocities once they arise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the R2P has been a reputable strategy in the humanitarian intervention in addressing severe cases of violence and persecution. The R2P has reshaped the structure of international humanitarian intervention, but the problems with the implementation of this vision have questioned it’s to address mass crimes around the globe. It can be concluded that in the recent past, the R2P framework has support from all over the world indicating that the framework has been accepted for humanitarian intervention. As for the analysis of the R2P framework efficiency, much attention is paid to the Libya case. In the Libya conflict of 2011, the international communion through NATO used the R2P framework to prosecute a mission to bring back order into the nation. The said framework has also guaranteed that the international standard on human rights and sovereignty of states has indeed been changed. In terms of prioritizing the people’s safety over the geopolitics of states, one could say that R2P approach to humanitarian intervention is rather effective. These include the following: Some of the areas that R2P has been applied include other areas and left other areas without intervention, hence making it selective.The fact that it was used in Libya and not Syria, considering that the mass atrocities occurred in almost the same time demonstrates its selective application.
References
Barber, R. (2023). Reflections on the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, and a possible alternative approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 77(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2241835
Bohm, A., & Brown, G. W. (2020). R2P and prevention: the international community and its role in the determinants of mass atrocity. Global Responsibility to Protect, 13(1), 60-95.
Carter, V. (2019). Hope for Another Humanitarian Intervention? Rwanda, Kosovo, Libya and the Consequences of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) on Myanmar.
Chesterman, S. (2021). Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention: From Apology to Utopia and Back Again. The Oxford Handbook on the International Law of Global Security (Oxford University Press, 2021), 808-820.
Dembinski, M., & Reinold, T. (2011). Libya and the Future of the Responsibility to Protect – African and European Perspectives. https://www.prif.org/fileadmin/HSFK/hsfk_downloads/prif107.pdf
Dunford, R., & Neu, M. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention. European Journal of International Relations, 25(4), 1080-1102.
Elcano Royal Institute. (2024, March 1). The limits of international law: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Israel and the International Court of Justice. Elcano Royal Institute. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/commentaries/the-limits-of-international-law-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-israel-and-the-international-court-of-justice/#:~:text=International%20action%20under%20R2P%20was
Henderson, S. (2020). Humanitarian intervention and R2P. Journal of International Peacekeeping, 22(1-4), 325-343.
Holmes, K. (2014, January 7). The Weakness of the Responsibility to Protect as an International Norm. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-weakness-the-responsibility-protect-international-norm#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20R2P%20is
Jemirade, D. (2021). Humanitarian intervention (HI) and the responsibility to protect (R2P): The United Nations and international security. African Security Review, 30(1), 48-65.
Krishnan, S. (2020). UN Peacekeeping, Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention. India Quarterly, 76(1), 120-135.
Mardiyanto, I., & Hidayatulloh, H. (2023). The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Concept as an Attempt for Protection of Human Rights in International Humanitarian Law Context. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi, 103-118.
Melling, G. (2018). Beyond rhetoric? Evaluating the Responsibility to Protect as a norm of humanitarian intervention. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 5(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1448156
Nahlawi, Y. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Syria: Mass Atrocities, Human Protection, and International Law. Routledge.
Šimonović, I. (2016, December). The Responsibility to Protect. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/responsibility-protect#:~:text=The%20responsibility%20to%20protect%20(commonly
United Nations (UN). (2018). United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Www.un.org. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml#:~:text=Each%20individual%20State%20has%20the
Wamulume, W. G., Tajari, A., & Sariburaja, K. (2022). (In) Effectiveness If Military Intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A Case Study of Libya. Open Access Library Journal, 9(5), 1-22.
Watkin, K. (2020). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Where it Stands in 2020. Sw. J. Int’l L., 26, 213.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more