Search results

1. Kantian provisional duties -- 2. Provisional protection : the responsibility to protect as a provisional duty -- 3. Kant's permissive laws -- 4. Permissible coercion -- 5. Provisional to peremptory : institutionalizing a duty to protect -- 6. Conclusion : the Responsibility to Protect and the real world - Libya and Syria.

"This book provides an innovative contribution to the study of the Responsibility to Protect and Kantian political theory. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine has been heralded as the new international security norm to ensure the protection of peoples against genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet, for all of the discussion, endorsements and reaffirmations of this new norm, R2P continues to come under fire for its failures, particularly, and most recently, in the case of Syria. This book argues that a duty to protect is best considered a Kantian provisional duty of justice. The international system ought to be considered a state of nature, where legal institutions are either weak or absent, and so duties of justice in such a condition cannot be considered peremptory. This book suggests that by understanding the duty's provisional status, we understand the necessity of creating the requisite executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Furthermore, the book provides three innovative contributions to the literature, study and practice of R2P and Kantian political theory: it provides detailed theoretical analysis of R2P; it addresses the research gap that exists with Kant's account of justice in states of nature; and it presents a more comprehensive understanding of the metaphysics of justice as well as R2P. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, global ethics, international law, security studies and international relations (IR) in general."--Publisher's website

Where does the humanitarian community sit in relation to continuing debates about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? The third pillar of R2P is often seen as the practical manifestation of an older idea of humanitarian intervention, given much attention after the Rwandan genocide and Srebrenica. Many humanitarians have long been reticent about the idea of so-called humanitarian intervention and, thus, of R2P. This article examines the logic behind this reticence and explores the practical relationship between R2P and humanitarian action. In particular, it focuses on three major crises during Holmes's time as Emergency Relief Coordination – Darfur, Sri Lanka and Myanmar – and goes on to consider briefly how and why R2P has been invoked, or not, in the more recent crises of Libya and Syria. It concludes with reflections about the implications for the future.

Libyen, Elfenbeinküste, Südsudan - in diesen Fällen berief sich der UN-Sicherheitsrat 2011 in seinen Resolutionen auf die Schutzverantwortung (R2P). Doch in Syrien und im Sudan geht das Morden bis heute weiter, die internationale Gemeinschaft kann sich nicht auf ein gemeinsames Vorgehen einigen. Was sind Bilanz und Perspektiven der R2P? (IP)

AbstractThe 2009 challenge in the United Nations General Assembly to the Responsibility to Protect was a warning call. This landmark piece of human rights legislation makes a lot of governments nervous; some of them would want to wipe R2P off the books. It might be worthwhile therefore to review how it came about and ask what its importance is to you. R2P had many "fathers", but one important one was UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Seared by the UN experience in Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda and the persecution of the Kosovars by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, Annan asked the International Peace Academy to look into the basis in international law for humanitarian intervention. They couldn't find one. Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy then stepped in and set up a commission that did in a report called e Responsibility to Protect. Annan carefully laid the groundwork for international acceptance of the principle. He created a high-level panel to study security threats in the 21 st century and named former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans to it. Evans co-chaired the Canadian panel. Annan's panel endorsed R2P. With that crucial backing, he put R2P to the General Assembly, which, against all odds, voted in favor of it in 2005, making R2P international law. Humanitarian intervention is in fact a threat to national sovereignty. But so are most international treaties. Governments trade on their sovereignty when it is in their interest to do so. On R2P they did so again. Why should it matter to you? Just remember the Holocaust.

"Libyen, Elfenbeinküste, Südsudan - in diesen Fällen berief sich der UN-Sicherheitsrat 2011 in seinen Resolutionen auf die Schutzverantwortung (R2P). Doch in Syrien und im Sudan geht das Morden bis heute weiter, die internationale Gemeinschaft kann sich nicht auf ein gemeinsames Vorgehen einigen. Was sind Bilanz und Perspektiven der R2P?" (Autorenreferat)

Essay in a symposium on "The United Nations and Regional Challenges in Africa -- 50 Years After Dag Hammarskjold.". Adapted from the source document.

Based on the idea of international community's residual responsibility for protection against mass violations of human rights, the concept of a responsibility to protect could mark a new step in the process of opening-up sovereign statehood. This essay sketches the concept in its development and basic elements, and discusses open questions from the perspective of international law. Eventually, it is doubtful whether the responsibility to protect can already be regarded as an emerging norm of international law. For this end, further internal differentiation of criteria and means is necessary. Perhaps the future of the concept lies not so much with the creation of concrete legal obligations, but in carving a possible new constitutional principle for the international community. After further development, it could thus serve as a conceptual framework for different elements of contemporary international law. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis discussion focuses on the content of the responsibility to protect the norm. It specifically addresses the historical roots and development of the norm by describing its fundamental differences from the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The legal heart of the responsibility to protect concept and questions of when and how the norm is engaged are also examined. Finally, the discussion explores the role that the UN institutions can play in interpreting and applying the norm, as well as the mechanisms of cooperation in protection available to the international community.