The Use of Force and the Third Pillar

The most controversial operational aspect to the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) is the potential use of “timely and decisive” military force to prevent or halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity (“the four crimes”). Notwithstanding the fact that the UN Charter largely prohibits the use of force, military intervention is political and polarizing by its very nature. For the third pillar, this polarizing effect is amplified by the space it shares — rightly or wrongly — with “humanitarian intervention”. Unlike humanitarian intervention the use of force under the RtoP is conceptually delimited by the need to secure a UN Security Council (UNSC) mandate and is restricted only to the four crimes. Yet the principle is still perceived by some as a way to justify intervention for political reasons under the veil of ethical principles. Countering the power of the ethical rationale for RtoP-based military interventions are rationales that feel just as forcefully about absolute sovereignty and the international order enshrined by the UN Charter.