... 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 ...
... rather important to ensure that a military intervention is legitimate and has broad support from the international community. The United Nations Security Council is the only international body that should represent the world’s voice and make decisions ... ... 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 ...
... different from full scale war. Proportional means would put a constraint on the use of force, which should be minimized during humanitarian interventions.
Coupled with proportional means, a clear mandate authorized by the UN Security Council containing ... ... 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 ...
... 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 ... ....Resolution 912 (S/RES/912). 21 April 1994.
[2] U.N. Security Council. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (S/1999/1257).16 December 1999.
[3] U.N. Security Council. 6498 th meeting. ...
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...
... goal of “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” professed by the international community in the United Nations Charter quite often collides with the real resources and risks that UN Member States are willing to commit to achieve ... ... 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 ...
