the responsibility to protect

The Responsibility

to Protect

Report of the International

Commission on Intervention and State

SovereigntyDecember 2001

United Nations

The Commission

Initiated by Lloyd Axworthy

Gareth Evans, Co-ChairMohamed Sahnoun, Co-Chair

Gisèle Côté-Harper Michael IgnatieffKlaus Naumann Fidel RamosEduardo Stein Lee HamiltonVladimir Lukin Cyril RamaphosaCornelio Sommaruga Ramesh Thakur

The Report

Address the question-When, if ever, is it appropriate for states to take military action against another, for the purpose of human protection of the resident peoples?

Open air graveEthiopia - Eritrea border

New

Internationalist, 1999

The Report

• Is there a right of intervention?• How and when should it be

exercised?• Under whose authority?• Is intervention an assault on

sovereignty?

• One of the most controversial and difficult of all international relations questions.

Synopsis

Basic Principles

• State sovereignty implies responsibility for protecting own people.

• International responsibility when state is unwilling or unable to halt or avert the serious harm to its population.

Foundations

• Obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty.

• The responsibility of the UN Security Council.

Foundations

• Specific legal obligations:– human rights and protection

declarations.– covenants and treaties.– humanitarian law.

• The developing practice of states, regional organizations and the Security Council.

Elements

• The responsibility to prevent– address root causes.

• The responsibility to react – respond with appropriate measures.

• The responsibility to rebuild– full assistance with recovery,

reconstruction and reconciliation.

The Balkansburning oil, polluted water

BB

C, 1999

Priorities

• Prevention is the single most important dimension.

• Less intrusive and coercive measures always considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied.

Principles for Military Intervention

• Just cause threshold

• Precautionary principles

• Right authority

• Operational principles

Just Cause Threshold

To warrant military intervention there must be serious and irreparable harm:

• Large scale loss of life.• Large scale ethnic cleansing.

Bujumbura, Burundi 1996 ethnic massacre

New

Internationalist, 1999

Precautionary Principles

• Right intention: – primary purpose must be to halt or

avert human suffering. – multilateral operations, clearly

supported by the victims concerned.

• Last resort: – every non-military option explored.– reasonable grounds for believing

lesser measures would not have succeeded.

Precautionary Principles

• Proportional means:– scale, duration and intensity of

should be the minimum necessary.

• Reasonable prospects: – reasonable chance of success. – consequences of action not worse

than the consequences of inaction.

Right Authority

• Security Council most appropriate body.

• Authorization always sought prior to intervention.

• Security Council should deal promptly with requests.

• The Permanent Five members should agree not to apply their veto power.

Right Authority

• If a proposal is rejected or not dealt with in a reasonable time, alternative options are:– General Assembly consideration

under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure.

– action by regional or sub-regional organizations.

Right Authority

• The Security Council must always consider its immense responsibility.– inaction may lead to concerned states

resorting to other means.– the nature and credibility of the

United Nations may suffer.

Operational Principles

• Clear objectives at all times.

• Common military approach among involved partners:– unity of command and clear

communications.

• Acceptance of limitations, incrementalism and gradualism:– objective human protection, not state

defeat.

Operational Principles

• Proportional rules of engagement that adhere to international humanitarian law.

• Force protection not the principal objective.

• Maximum coordination with humanitarian organizations.

Specific Issues

The Right to Intervene?

• Traditional term- has inherent problems.

• Focuses on the claims, rights and prerogatives of the intervening states.

• Does not account for preventive effort or follow-up assistance.

• Intrinsically more confrontational.

Objectives of a New Approach

1. Clearer rules, procedures and criteria for determining whether, when and how to intervene.

2. Legitimate military intervention when necessary and after all other approaches have failed.

Objectives of a New Approach

3. Effective military intervention carried out only for the purposes proposed, that minimizes the human costs.

4. Eliminate the causes of conflict while enhancing the prospects for durable and sustainable peace.

Human Security

• Security of people:– physical safety.– economic and social well being.– dignity and worth as human beings.– human rights and fundamental

freedoms.

• The Universal Declaration of human Rights (1948) embodies the moral code, political consensus and legal synthesis of human rights.

UP

I/Bettm

ann

Responsibility to Protect

Responsibility for protecting the lives of citizens lies with:

1. The sovereign state. 2. Domestic authorities acting in

partnership with external actors.3. International organizations.

Sovereignty

• Sovereignty does not grant unlimited power to a state regarding its own people.

• Implies a dual responsibility:– externally, respecting other states.– internally, respecting dignity and

rights of own population.

Genocide in Rwanda

BB

C, 2001

Kosovar refugees

BBC, 1999

Meaning of Intervention

• “Intervention” potentially covers a large number of activities.– controversial term.

• This report- “action taken against a state, without its consent, for claimed humanitarian or protective purposes.”

UN Intervention

• Legitimate because it is authorized by a representative international body.

• Unilateral intervention illegitimate because of self-interests.

• States must renounce unilateral use of force for national purposes.

UN General Assembly

United N

ations

Security Council (SC) Issues

Authority and credibility questions:

• Legal capacity to authorize military intervention.

• Political will.• Generally uneven performance.• Unrepresentative membership.• Permanent Five veto power.

UN Security Council

United N

ations

SC Past Performance

• Often fallen short of responsibilities.

• Due to factors such as:– sheer lack of interest.– concern about political impacts.– disagreements between permanent 5

members.– reluctance to bear the financial and

personnel burdens of international action.

SC - Report Conclusions

• Security Council most appropriate body for decisions about: – overriding state sovereignty.– mobilizing military resources.

• Goal - to make the Security Council work better than it has.

SC - Proposed Improvements

• A “code of conduct” for the use of the veto.– a permanent member would not

obstruct passing an otherwise majority resolution.

• Clear, responsible and consistent leadership.– never abdicating responsibility.– valuing human life above politics.

“If the collective conscience of humanity…cannot find in the United Nations its greatest tribune, there is a grave danger that it will look elsewhere for peace and for justice.”

Kofi Annan

World H

ealth Organization, 2001

Responsibility to Prevent

• First with the sovereign state.

• Failed prevention can have international consequences.

Responsibility to Prevent

• Strong support from the international community is often needed:– development assistance.– support for local initiatives to

advance good governance, human rights and/or rule of law.

– mediation efforts.

Dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians

Yes!, 1998

Prevention Resources

• Organization of African Unity - 1993 Mechanism for Conflict Prevention , Management and Settlement.

• Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - developed a number of mechanisms for preventing conflict in Europe.

• Increasingly significant role of NGOs.

Responsibility to React

• Intervention from a broader community of states:– in situations of compelling human

need.– if prevention has failed.

• Coercive measures include political, economic or judicial measures and, only in extreme cases, military action.

Nigerian UN Peacekeeping soldier

Yes!, 1999

Measures Short of Military Action

• Sanctions– do not directly interfere with the capacity of a

domestic authority to operate.– often indiscriminate - need to avoid doing more

harm than good.– in Iraq sanctions are resulting in massive harm

to the civilian population.

Types of Sanctions

• Military– arms embargoes.– ending military cooperation and

training programs.

• Economic– financial sanctions targeting assets.– restrictions on income generating

activities.– aviation bans.

Types of Sanctions

• Political and Diplomatic– restrictions on diplomatic

representation.– restrictions on travel.– expulsion from international or

regional bodies.

The International Court of Justice

Disarm

ament and S

ecurity Centre

Military Action

• Should only occur in extreme situations.– what constitutes ‘extreme’ situations?

• The starting point should be the principle of non-intervention.– equivalent to the Hippocratic principle -

‘do no harm’.• Need to satisfy the threshold

conditions and precautionary principles.

Responsibility to Rebuild

• In the past:– responsibility to rebuild not

recognized.– exit of the interveners poorly

managed.– commitment to reconstruction

inadequate.– underlying problems that produced

the original intervention action not addressed.

The Responsibility to Rebuild

• Genuine commitment to reconstitute public safety and order needed if military intervention is taken.

• International and local partnerships -with progressive transferring of authority and responsibility to local authorities.

Responsibility to Rebuild

• True reconciliation is best generated by ground level reconstruction efforts.

• Requires more than purely diplomatic and military action:– creation or strengthening of national institutions.– monitoring elections.– promoting human rights.– providing for reintegration and rehabilitation and

development.

Responsibility to Rebuild

• Critical priorities to avoid resurgence of the conflict:– reconciliation and respect for human

rights of all populations. – political inclusiveness and national

unity.– repatriation and resettlement of

refugees and displaced persons.– reintegration of ex-combatants into

productive society.– domestic and international resources for

reconstruction and economic recovery.

Responsibility to Rebuild

Without an exit strategy for the intervening troops there are, at best, unsettling implications for the country and a possibility of discrediting even the positive aspects of the intervention itself.

Development with Justice

If you have come to help me you are wasting your time.

But - If your have come because

your liberation is bound up with mine then let us work

together.

Lilla Watson, Australia