This article has been written by Advitya Ahlawat, a 2nd Year Student of School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore.

Abstract – The failures of the international community to stop atrocities in the 1990s prompted the development and difficulties of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) philosophy, which are examined in this article. R2P, which has its roots in “State sovereignty as a responsibility,” aims to strike a balance between national sovereignty and the preservation of human rights. This framework, which emphasizes the dual responsibilities of nations and the international community, was approved by the World Summit in 2005. During the Libyan conflict in 2011, practical issues arose that prompted concerns about intervention and sovereignty. Situations such as the Rohingya crisis serve as a reminder of the ongoing global challenges in putting R2P into practice. The article’s conclusion highlights the continuous international effort to resolve humanitarian emergencies while respecting UN principles.

Keywords: R2P, humanitarian intervention, sovereignty, human rights, UN, 2005 World Summit, Libya, Rohingya crisis, global challenges.

Introduction and The Role of Security Council –

 A major advancement in international relations, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) idea arose from the fundamental gaps and inadequacies in the 1990s atrocity prevention efforts. The world witnessed dark periods in history when atrocities occurred in Rwanda and the Balkans, revealing the international community’s shortcomings in confronting flagrant and persistent abuses of human rights. Despite being meant to stop the bloodshed, the NATO military involvement that followed in Kosovo was criticized for going against the ban on using force. This sparked a heated discussion on how the international community ought to react to these kinds of violations, which forced the UN to seriously consider the tenets that underpin humanitarian assistance.

 While serving as UN Secretary-General in 1999, Kofi Annan emphasized the critical necessity for cooperation in preserving the UN Charter’s tenets and defending humankind. The Canadian government created the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in response to this dilemma. A revolutionary report titled “The Responsibility to Protect,” published by the ICISS in 2001, suggested a paradigm change from the idea of humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect. Francis Deng’s concept of “State sovereignty as a responsibility,” which holds that sovereignty implies positive responsibilities for the wellbeing of a state’s inhabitants, served as the basis for this unique strategy. 

The essential element of the duty to protect is realizing that the state bears main responsibility for ensuring the safety of its citizens. However, in cases where a state is unwilling or unable to carry out its obligation or turns into an atrocity perpetrator, a “residual responsibility” is acknowledged for the larger community of states. The 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, in which the heads of state and government pledged to safeguard their people from crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, accepted this conceptual framework.

The idea outlines two strategies. First and foremost, it is the duty of individual states to guard and prevent their citizens from being victims of such horrible acts. Second, it is the duty of the international community to support governments in carrying out their responsibilities by diplomatic, humanitarian, and nonviolent methods, working through the United Nations and in collaboration with pertinent regional organizations. In the event that peaceful measures prove ineffective and national authorities are clearly unable to defend their citizens, the Security Council may approve collective action, which may include the use of force as a final resort. By supporting governments in carrying out their current obligations and providing chances for early warning systems, capacity building, and preventive measures, the idea upholds sovereignty.

 The obligation to protect continues to be a vital framework for addressing and averting the most severe human rights breaches on a worldwide scale, notwithstanding the difficulties and disagreements surrounding intervention and sovereignty. The United Nations Secretary-General has taken action to clarify the responsibility to safeguard principle and direct its actual application since it was adopted in 2005. Its continued importance is highlighted by the Member States’ frequent, official, and informal consideration of it. During a detailed day-long debate on the core tenets of the UN Charter, the Security Council recently heard from almost seventy speakers who presented differing views on the fine line that must be drawn between states’ sovereign rights and the need to protect human rights.

 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized that the primary objective should be to extend the promise of the UN Charter to the most vulnerable populations, highlighting the elusive nature of the principles for millions of people living in conflict zones and extreme poverty. Different interpretations of the Charter were brought to light during the debate; some emphasized the need of staying out of internal matters, while others argued for involvement when states violated human rights or failed to safeguard their populations. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, which asserts that, although individual states bear primary responsibility for protecting populations, the international community, functioning through the UN, should intervene when a state is unwilling or unable to carry out this obligation, was a focal point of key discussions. Changing global threats—from pandemic diseases to terrorism—and unheard-of migratory flows have led speakers to demand that the fundamental ideas of the Charter be interpreted increasingly. 

The UK warned against out-of-date interpretations that could justify inaction, claiming that the idea of sovereignty had evolved into a relationship between the state and the people. During the argument, a number of particular incidents were brought up, such as the Russian Federation’s activities in Crimea, which were considered acts of aggression that violated international law. Ukraine called on the international community to reinstate respect for the Charter after accusing the Russian Federation of aiding terrorists and pointing out a major decline in human rights in Crimea. The nuclear tests and missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were also denounced, highlighting the transgression of Council resolutions and raising a clear question about the Charter. 

Ultimately, the conversation highlighted how the Security Council must strike a careful balance between upholding national sovereignty and acting swiftly to stop and rectify human rights abuses. In order to successfully handle current issues and defend the values embodied

in the UN Charter, a nuanced interpretation of the Charter’s principles is required, as the debate also highlighted the dynamic nature of global threats.

The Obligation to Preserve: A Contentious Issue

1. Liberal Institutionalism and the Protection of Human Rights: This approach highlights the function of international organizations in fostering state collaboration and safeguarding human rights. In addition to promoting global peace and security, the UN’s Charter also promotes collaboration and the defence of human rights. In order to promote openness, prevent conflicts, and give state promises credibility, international institutions are essential.

1. Evolution of State Sovereignty: The idea of state sovereignty was first based on authority and autonomy, and it was first introduced in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. But the horrors of the World Wars forced a rethinking that resulted in the UN’s formation to restrict the use of force between nations. The UN Charter contained ambiguous language regarding action in circumstances of grave human rights breaches, creating a contradiction between sovereignty and human rights.

1. Common Responsibility to Protect: Throughout the 1990s, sovereignty underwent significant revision. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan, for example, argued that sovereignty should be used as an instrument to serve people. The R2P philosophy was developed as a result of the UN’s failings being made clear by the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Yugoslavia. The Responsibility to safeguard (R2P), which was enacted in 2005, provides that if they fail to safeguard their population, the international community may step in through the UN Security Council (UNSC) in circumstances where there has been a significant loss of life or ethnic cleansing.

1. The Rohingya Crisis: The Difficulties of R2P and Non-Intervention: The continued Rohingya catastrophe in Myanmar serves as a stark reminder of how little the international community has done to uphold the R2P theory. The Rohingya have been the target of discrimination for decades; in 1982, the Burmese government deprived them of their citizenship. The UNSC has refrained from acting in response to allegations of ethnic cleansing, possibly due to the aftermath of the Libyan conflict. UNSC action is further hampered by China’s geopolitical interests in Myanmar, a major trading partner, highlighting the difficulties in striking a balance between state sovereignty and the defense of human rights.

The R2P doctrine has been criticized for a number of reasons, including issues with sovereign equality and questions regarding the universality of human rights. The theory places a strong emphasis on state accountability as the first and military action as a last resort. Critics contend that the UNSC’s “big 5” might obstruct interventions because of its geopolitical implications and that it might be abused for Western interests.

 An Important Turning Point for Responsibility to Protect?

The R2P theory was first widely applied during the Libyan crisis in 2011. NATO’s action was to shield civilians from Gaddafi’s government; it was first approved by the UNSC in Resolutions 1970 and 1973. Critics contend that NATO’s actions resulted in war crimes, a high number of civilian deaths, and inadequate post-intervention operations, while advocates assert that the alliance was successful in saving lives and building a cohesive multinational coalition.

The Ascent and Decline of Protective Obligation

“Sovereignty is sacred. But when lives are in danger, does that principle still apply?”

The United Nations (UN) was founded by world leaders in the wake of World War II with the intention of averting major wars and preserving national sovereignty. In order to address border conflicts and internal bloodshed, the UN sent out multinational peacekeeping forces, governed by the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. But in the 1990s, things like the slaughter in Rwanda and the wars in the former Yugoslavia caused these ideas to be reexamine. The question of whether sovereignty might be overridden in order to stop mass atrocities was one that the international community debated. This dilemma led to the endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in 2005.

 R2P asserted that countries have a sovereign responsibility to protect their citizens, and if they fail, the international community, acting through the UN, may intervene, even violating a nation’s sovereignty if necessary. The doctrine faced a critical test in 2011 during Libya’s civil war. The UN invoked R2P to authorize a no-fly zone, aiming to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi’s violent response to protests. However, the intervention evolved into a regime-change operation, leading to the toppling of Qaddafi and leaving Libya in a state of prolonged instability. World leaders disagreed and expressed worries about the fine line that must be drawn between upholding human rights and respecting sovereignty in the wake of the contentious R2P implementation in Libya.

 After opposing the NATO-led operation, China and Russia used their veto power in the UN Security Council to thwart additional R2P-based interventions. The world community struggled with several crises after Libya, including the civil war in Syria, the conflict in Yemen, and the Rohingya issue in Myanmar. The globe continued to be split on how best to strike a balance between intervention and sovereignty in spite of growing violations of human rights and humanitarian disasters. The largest humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, over 400,000 dead in Syria, and accusations of genocide in Myanmar highlighted the UN’s shortcomings in managing international crises.

 In summary, the history of the UN, from its founding to the development and application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, shows an ongoing conflict between national sovereignty and the need to stop mass crimes. Subsequent efforts to negotiate the intricate confluence of sovereignty and human rights within the international system have been hampered by the legacy of the Libya intervention, which was characterized by unanticipated repercussions and geopolitical differences. The world is still at a standstill when it comes to addressing crises in a way that upholds the fundamental values of the UN.

Conclusion 

 A deep conflict exists between the need to stop mass crimes and the ideals of national sovereignty, which is reflected in the development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) theory. R2P was developed in reaction to the 1990s failures to stop genocides and violations of human rights; nevertheless, its application in the wake of the 2011 Libyan crisis revealed difficulties and intricacies. The contentious conversion of the humanitarian intervention into an attempt to overthrow the current government brought attention to how difficult it is to protect human rights while also honouring the sovereignty of other countries. The crises that have since arisen in Yemen, Myanmar, and Syria have brought attention to how difficult it is for the international community to negotiate this complex terrain. The aftermath of the intervention in Libya continues to influence intervention discussions, highlighting the necessity for nuanced strategies and a reassessment of the core principles.

Reference:;

1. This article was originally published on The United Nations website. The link for the same is herein. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml
2. This article was originally published on The United Nations website. The link for the same is herein. https://press.un.org/en/2016/sc12241.doc.htm
3. This article was originally written by Margherita Buso published on E-International Relations website. The link for the same is herein. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/07/13/the-responsibility-to-protect-a-disputed-matter/#google_vignette
4. This article was originally published on World 101 website. The link for the same is herein. https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/rise-and-fall-responsibility-protect
5. This article was originally written by Anne Peters published on Brill website. The link for the same is herein. https://brill.com/view/journals/iolr/8/1/article-p15_2.xml?ebody=abstract%2Fexcerpt
6. This article was originally written by Gareth Evans published on JSTOR website. The link for the same is herein. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659900
7. This article was originally written by Ramesh Thakur published on JSTOR website. The link for the same is herein. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26298083