Skip to main content
main-content

Über dieses Buch

This book examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. While arguing that R2P has evolved into an international moral norm, Ercan concludes that R2P cannot lead to a positive change in the international system without being equipped with new powers.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

1. Introduction

Abstract
Arguably, in the last fourteen years, we have witnessed the ‘rise’ and ‘fall’ of an international norm called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P, also abbreviated as RtoP). When the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) introduced the ‘responsibility to protect’ to the international community in 2001, it followed the motto ‘never again’. In this vein, R2P prescribed states and the international community with three responsibilities—to prevent, to react, and to rebuild—enabling them to prevent or halt mass atrocities against populations.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

Shifting the Terms of the Debate: From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect

Frontmatter

2. Humanitarian Intervention and the Path to R2P

Abstract
In the Foreword, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS 2001a, p. vii) indicates that its ‘report is about the so-called “right of humanitarian intervention”: the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive—and in particular military—action against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state’. Therefore, prior to tracing R2P’s evolution in the institutional framework of the UN, it is important to identify the relationship between humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect to have a full understanding of the two notions and of the essence of the Report of the ICISS.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

3. International Law and the ‘Right to Intervene’

Abstract
This chapter places the doctrine of humanitarian intervention within the realm of international law keeping two objectives in mind. The first is to question whether or not there exists a right to intervene and how state practice has evolved prior to 2001. The second is to provide a basis to assess the permissive and restrictive influences of legal elements on the conduct of humanitarian intervention, which is among the measures of the responsibility to react. In the subsequent chapters of the book, such analysis will also help understand the factors hindering the evolution of the collective responsibility to protect into a legal norm. In light of this, the chapter analyses the legal background in the construction of through the evolution of international law and the practice of humanitarian intervention in the post-Charter period. As Teitel (2011, p. 4) maintains:
Pınar Gözen Ercan

The Path to an International Norm?

Frontmatter

4. Tracing the Process

Abstract
Evans (2008a, b) argues that the ‘whole point of embracing the new language of “responsibility to protect” is that it is capable of generating an effective, consensual response in extreme, conscience-shocking cases, in a way that “right to intervene” language simply was not’. While addressing the question of ‘how humanitarian intervention could be possible’, the ICISS was aware of the need to shift the terms of the intervention debate. By adding the responsibility component to the classical conceptualisation of state sovereignty, the Report suggested ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ understanding as a first measure to prevent conscious acts of violence within states. Second, it argued, rather than a natural right to intervene, there exists for the international community the responsibilities to prevent, react, and rebuild when states themselves fail to uphold their responsibility due to either inability or unwillingness. As Finnemore and Sikkink (1998, p. 908) note, ‘[t]he relationship of new normative claims to existing norms may also influence the likeliness of their influence. This is most clearly true for norms within international law, since the power or persuasiveness of a normative claim in law is explicitly tied to the “fit” of that claim within existing normative frameworks’. In this vein, entrepreneurs of the norm differentiated the ‘responsibility to protect’ from the controversial notion of the ‘right to intervene’ and embedded the concept within the well-established principle of sovereignty. With this, they aimed to preclude any negative connotation stemming from past practices or arguments in favour of forceful interventions.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

5. Upholding the Responsibility?

Abstract
In his various reports, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlights that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from atrocity crimes, and that such responsibility arises from well-established rules of international law. Nevertheless, as Shaw (2003, p. 58) reminds, ‘most of the mass killings of modern history can be laid at the door of state organizations. States are the practitioners of slaughter par excellence’. From an R2P point of view, this corresponds to a manifest failure of states, which would invoke the responsibility of the international community. It is the assumption of such responsibility by the international community, which arguably is the genuine point where R2P can lead to a change in the pattern of failure at the state level and become an answer to the call for ‘no more Rwandas’.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

To Protect or Not to Protect?

Frontmatter

6. The Way Forward

Abstract
As explained in Chap. 1, this book is neither a mere attempt to make a case for the utility of the responsibility to protect nor a sheer criticism of it. Instead, based on an analysis of R2P’s evolution so far, it attempts to draw an alternative path for the future of the norm with the aim to make it a functioning part of the international system. Though it is important to question the progress achieved on the R2P front since the norm’s instigation, an enquiry into the future of R2P would be far from complete without an assessment of the norm’s limitations and an examination of proposals on how to overcome them. The primary goal of this chapter is to take up such task with a twofold analysis.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

7. Conclusion: One’s Reality, Another’s Illusion

Abstract
‘I watched a little baby die today, absolutely horrific. Just a two-year old been hit […] That is happening over and over and over. No one can understand how the international community can let this happen. Particularly when you have an example of Srebrenica, shelling of a city, lots of investigations by the United Nations after that massacre or lots of vows to never let it happen again’, remarked the Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin (BBC 2012) when she reported from Homs, Syria, just a day before she and French photographer Remi Ochlik were killed by the shells that hit where they resided. No matter how many times we may have heard the slogans, ‘never again’, ‘no more Srebrenicas’, and ‘no more Rwandas’ (just to name few striking cases among many others) in the early 2000s, with the situation in Darfur there came yet another call: ‘Genocide No More—Save Darfur’, and since the early 2010s, there has been a ‘never again is now’ cry for the appalling humanitarian crisis in Syria, where the international community has been rendered ineffective, if not idle.
Pınar Gözen Ercan

Backmatter

Weitere Informationen

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise