Introduction
In the 2005 World Summit deliberations, the United Nations adopted the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as an approach to prevent genocides, mass atrocities, and other crimes against humanity (Moses, 2013). The concept was adopted with an agreement that each country‘s leadership is accountable for the protection of its people from crimes against humanity. As a result, the international community now has an obligation to assist nations facing genocides and war crimes in fulfilling their own responsibility to protect their people (Glanville, 2013). Such intervention by the international community ought to be accorded in a timely and decisive manner to protect the populations from the effects of war. Under the R2P agreement, the states under the UN General Assembly approved the implementation of the principle with the thematic resolve of protecting civilians during armed conflicts in their country and while seeking refuge in neighboring states. The principle of R2P has also been a central agenda in the UN Security Council resolutions in providing interventions in war-torn regions such as South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among other states (Holmes, 2014). Remarkably, the concept of R2P has attained noteworthy success in averting genocides, war crimes, and ethnic conflicts. However, with the concern over the efficiency of armed intervention in ending mass atrocities and genocides, R2P implementation faces huge risks, which have been centered on a nation’s sovereignty, the right to external coercion, as well as the efficiency of its interventions in preventing genocides. This paper presents a detailed analysis of the R2P principle, examined from the perspective of its implementation risks and benefits in ending genocides and mass atrocities.
R2P Overview
The concept of R2P was initiated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), with the aim of providing intervention in humanitarian situations of genocides and mass atrocities in a nation (Holmes, 2014). R2P was formulated with the goal of imposing coercive action on states facing genocides so as to protect the nation’s population from suffering severe harm. In this regard, the principle is adopted as an international norm as a right to intervene in cases of genocides. In practice, states are charged with the responsibility of protecting its people. The norm of the responsibility to protect is enshrined in the Genocide Convention, whereby a nation’s responsibility to protect its citizens overrides its sovereignty in the occurrence of civil strife (Tiewa, 2012).
Basically, the responsibility to protect incorporates three pillars, which were outlined during the 2005 UN world summit (Welsh, 2013). At the outset, a state hold the primary responsibility of safeguarding its citizens from war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity and ethnic clashes, as well as their provocation. In addition, the international community has an obligation to aid and encourage states to execute their responsibility to protect their citizens. Intervention by the international community includes the use of humanitarian and diplomatic means to safeguard citizens from war crimes. If a state facing crimes against humanity manifests failure to protect its people from harm, then the international community steps in to intervene by taking collective action to safeguard the people, as stipulated in the UN Charter (Holmes, 2014).
Risks of the Responsibility to Protect
As affirmed by Chandler (2005), the reality of implementing the responsibility to protect is the dilemma that faces the implementation of security interventions by international agencies in the event of mass atrocities and genocides. Considering the sensitivity of these interventions and their impact on the states’ sovereignty, addressing large scale human rights abuse has been considered as a complicated task. Thakur (2015) notes that, as globalization continues to take a center stage across the globe, humanitarian catastrophes occurring across the world are easily identified by the international community. As a result, the international community under R2P steps in responsively to secure the populations from harm. In this regard, the question of the responsibility to protect as an intervention is based on whether the international community ought to conform to the approach of non-intervention, or whether R2P should be enforced as an international norm (Thakur, 2015).
Although the concept of R2P has received much applause from states, it has also been a subject of criticism and debate, especially on its ability to secure the welfare of the people (Williams, Ulbrick & Worboys, 2012). The doctrine’s ability to safeguard citizens from gross infringement of their rights has been questionable since the international community has failed to show their commitment to affirming their responsibility to protect. In fact, the implementation of the doctrine fails to adhere to the stated responsibilities, hence the gap between the promised intervention and the reality. For instance, as argued by Averre and Davies (2015), the ongoing war in Syria has not gained substantial international attention, yet many people are facing mass atrocities executed by the state army and affiliated militia groups. Similarly, in Syria, vulnerable civilians are still living under siege, yet the international community has not shown its full commitment to protecting the welfare of the people by executing the responsibility enshrined in R2P. Syria continues to face a refugee crisis, with 4 million people having sought asylum in neighboring nations. In addition, an estimated 7.6 Syrians have been internally displaced, whereas over 210,000 people have lost their lives (Averre and Davies, 2015). The Syria crisis, as well as civil strife in other nations raises serious questions on whether the international community is executing its responsibility to secure the populations.
In reality, the proposed intervention through coercion as posited in the R2P doctrine remains controversial. While proponents of R2P argue that the international community has a responsibility to end war crimes, critics of the approach are skeptical that R2P promotes a military ideology based on coercion, which could lead to increased armed conflicts (Reinold, 2012). Furthermore, there lies a big issue of contention on the coercive military action that states are required to impose on other states, with the goal of protecting people at risk of genocide in countries not their own. Moses (2013) affirms that politically-fuelled catastrophes occasioned by internal conflicts in a state pose a big challenge when it comes to intervention because of the possible bias of the international community. In this regard, there has been a huge concern that R2P intervention could weaken humanitarian crimes’ prevention efforts. The potential militarization of coerced intervention linked to R2P, as well as, political controversies linked to the initiative could undermine the landmark achievements already made in averting war. More importantly, it should be noted that R2P does not seek to alter the existing legislation that governs the use of force in intervention, nor does it affirm on the power of the international community to interfere with the affairs and sovereignty of states (Glanville, 2013).
Further, it is clear that the R2P concept is becoming a living reality in the mission of the UN and the international community, although there has been abject failure to avert mass atrocities in many war-torn regions, for example, in Syria and Sri Lanka. Such is an indication that R2P has not achieved total success. In Sri Lanka, an estimated 40,000 civilians died in the 2009 war, in crimes against humanity, predominantly executed by government affiliated forces (Holmes, 2014). Most critics have cited failure of the UN to effectively intervene in Sri Lanka to avert mass murders, hence, raising doubts on whether the internationa
l community is fully configured to execute its mandate as provided in R2P. Although some reforms have been enacted to make R2P implementation more effective in assuming responsibility to protect citizens, more changes are needed to enable the international community to anticipate and respond to security crises. Some examples of the enacted reforms include the formation of the Office for Genocide Prevention and R2P to monitor security incidents and provide early warning and alerts, training and sensitizing UN officials on security matters, as well as, affirming on the responsibility of leaders to ensure the security of its citizens (Moses, 2013).
Benefits of R2P
The responsibility to protect is part of reforms in international security practices, as well as a human rights initiative that seeks to address failures by the international community to avert and halt war crimes, torture and atrocities, ethnic clashes and other forms of crimes against humanity (Glanville, 2013). The reforms are implemented in recognition of the fact that sovereignty is no longer exercised to safeguard states from external interference, but that they have an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of its people by remaining accountable for their security. The responsibility to protect initiative champions for collaboration between affected states and the international community to prevent and end mass killings and genocides. Whereas the responsibility for states to protect its citizens largely lies on the government, the international community also holds a responsibility to protect humanity; an obligation that cannot be restricted by the invocation of a state’s sovereignty (Holmes, 2014). In the occurrence of genocides and mass atrocities, states can no longer enjoy their sovereignty since foreign nations and agencies step in to secure the people.
R2P intervention to avert genocides and other crimes against humanity has incorporated a wide range of interventions to minimize impending security risks, strengthen states’ resilience to security issues and avert the escalation of conflicts into violence that could harm innocent civilians (Evans, Thakur & Pape, 2013). The strategies applied in R2P are centered on advocacy for human rights, peace building, and resolution of conflicts. Addressing the security risks entails not condoning any form of discrimination, addressing issues of inequalities in states, and fairly addressing past atrocities, genocides or any form of injustices committed in a country. For instance, after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the role of R2P entailed building national resilience against war crimes, ensuring the rule of law is enforced, conducting reforms to ensure national security, as well as, setting up institutions that can legitimately resolve disputes and uphold human rights (Glanville, 2013).
Although the international law has been striving to end inter-state and ethnic wars, these conflicts are highly rampant, and in some instances, states abusing their sovereignty as a license to kill. In other incidents, states’ intervention has not been adequate in safeguarding the population from violence and genocides. In such incidents, whereby armed conflicts occurs causing harm to civilians, R2P intervention has been valuable in averting mass displacement of people and murder (Reinold, 2012). A collapsed state could lead to loss of statehood, subjecting the population to mass atrocities committed by government troops and irregular forces. In such incidents, the R2P approach has enabled the international community to enforce their mandate of upholding global security, achieved through protection of civilians.
Further, the R2P doctrine has been effective, when implemented as a non-coercive approach towards ending genocides and mass atrocities. For instance, in Yemen, the UN Security Council applied R2P to prompt the state to enact its protection responsibilities by creating a provision for a transitional authority to ensure the region’s stability. In another example, South Sudan and Mali have benefited from the UN intervention through R2P, by accessing the international help accorded to states that are struggling to provide security to the populations (Holmes, 2014). Such missions have been centered on averting genocides and mass atrocities, to safeguard the vulnerable citizens.
Conclusion
To a large extent, the R2P principle has realized tremendous success in averting war crimes and genocides through the intervention of the international community. Whereas the international community has effectively intervened in some war regions to safeguard the welfare of the people, in other regions facing security crises, such interventions have not been forthcoming. The realities of globalization and interconnectedness call for international community’s swift action in averting large scale violation of human rights and genocides in foreign nations. To avert crimes against humanity as we forge forward, there is need to reform R2P principles and adopt consistent, credible and reliable measures that will guide states in protecting its people. In the long run, the success of the R2P should not be viewed on the basis of the efficiency of the armed interventions, but rather should be centered on the collective milestones realized in averting humanitarian crimes and their impending risks.