... Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." (MLK)
The international community strongly denounced the violence in Syria but so far it hasn’t been able to provide an effective framework to prevent and stop these atrocities. The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine - adopted in 2005 to embody the promises made by world leaders to prevent a future “Cambodia”, “Bosnia” and “Rwanda” - could neither prevent nor save Syria.
The humanitarian ...
- 21.05.2013 21:18:00
... exercise the veto right when the use of military force runs counter to their strategic interest in the afflicted country, even if non-intervention leads to continued mass atrocities.
Russia and China, for example, do in theory support the norm of the responsibility to protect, but in practice have historically advocated a non-interference policy in the internal affairs of other countries. This is partly because they are worried that the repeated invocation of military interventions could create a ...
- 08.11.2012 22:08:00
... voting on this resolution, which was adopted. During the operation the alliance then morphed the original mission of saving civilians into one of a bringing about a regime change. The operation in Libya thus exceeded its mandate and the norm of the responsibility to protect was damaged in the eyes of some nations, including China and Russia. This is partly responsible for the failure on the part of the Security Council to take any decisive actions on Syria – Russia now suspects Western nations ...
- 02.11.2012 04:52:00
... for the troops participating in the intervention. Military intervention can be only justified when non-intervention will result in more civilian casualties. Without a just cause, military intervention cannot be called humanitarian.
The norm of the responsibility to protect limits military intervention to particular crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. When situations arise that are candidates to invoke this norm, the decision to intervene is still ...
- 30.10.2012 22:02:00
In my previous blog entry I talked about the politicized and selective approaches of UN Member States to making decision on intervention into intra-state conflicts. So, what could be the solution to this problem? What is needed to minimize the politicization? Clear criteria for military intervention should be defined in international law, so that when an intra-state conflict erupts, the international community, having timely assessed the conflict on the ground, could run through a checklist of those...
- 29.10.2012 03:36:00
... within 3 days of adoption of resolution 1973. In this resolution the UN Security Council condemned war crimes and crimes against humanity in that country and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians.
Thus, enshrined in the concept of responsibility to protect case by case basis of making decision on conducting military interventions encourages politicization and selective approach to conflicts.
The United Nations’ primary purpose is to serve the peoples of the world, and ...
- 30.09.2012 16:29:00