Search

Copyright of Estudios Internacionales is the property of Instituto de Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad de Chile and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in the number of civilian resistance movements (CRMs) within states to counter government repression and coups d'états through which civilians are on the frontlines of state brutality and mass atrocities. This article considers the implications of CRMs for atrocity prevention and the associated responsibility to protect norm by asking, Should the international community support CRMs as part of its wider commitment to ending mass atrocities? In this article, we evaluate both military and nonmilitary support to CRMs. We argue that in the context of coups and government repression, providing lethal military support to CRMs will often make things worse in terms of atrocity prevention. We however explain that the provision by the international community of nonlethal and nonmilitary support through political recognition, technical assistance, and accountability can yield positive results. We illustrate this argument with the case of Myanmar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Al-Muntaqa: New Perspectives on Arab Studies is the property of Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) advocates for non-intervention principle as a conflict management strategy in the Horn of Africa. However, the principle's contribution and effectiveness in conflict management have sparked debates and concerns. Thus, the purpose of this article is to critically examine the IGAD non-intervention principle in conflict management, focusing on its actual contributions and potential shortcomings. The principle is assessed based on its stated objectives and the attainment of the desired outcomes. The study used the principles of non-intervention and responsibility to protect to examine the IGAD's non-intervention. The study adopted qualitative research methodology with a case study design. Four interstate interventions were selected as case studies and used as data sources. The findings demonstrate that IGAD's non-intervention policy fails to prevent and manage interstate intervention and intrastate conflicts. The principle does not manage to protect the sovereignty of its member states, as the region witnessed four cases of interstate intervention between 2005 and 2020. The principle's inability to prevent and manage interstate interventions and intrastate conflicts demonstrates its limitations in achieving desired outcomes. The article has identified four limitations of the principle: lack of clarity on nonintervention and internal affairs, mismatch between rhetoric and state practice, IGAD's lack of enforcement mechanisms, and the principle's limitations in dealing with contemporary peace and security challenges in a region with high level of conflicts. This article further illustrates that the principle not only has limitations in managing conflicts but also contradicts its objectives, hindering the organization's leadership role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their pronounced potential, unacceptable risk AI systems, such as facial recognition, have been used as tools for, inter alia, digital surveillance, and policing. This usage raises concerns in relation to the protection of basic freedoms and liberties and upholding the rule of law. This article contributes to the legal discussion by investigating how the law must intervene, control, and regulate the use of unacceptable risk AI systems that concern biometric data from a human-rights and rule of law perspective. In doing so, the article first examines the collection of biometric data and the use of facial recognition technology. Second, it describes the nature of the obligation or duty of states to regulate in relation to new technologies. The article, lastly, assesses the legal implications resulting from the failure of states to regulate new technologies and investigates possible legal remedies. The article uses some relevant EU regulations as an illustrative example.

Introduction The right to self-determination could be applied in situations aiming to prevent crimes against humanity that are subject to the responsibility to protect. Generally, governments that violate the right to self-determination of their people, including minority groups, are more prone to committing these heinous crimes. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect seeks to establish a responsible government toward its citizens; The protection aspect of the doctrine has been discussed in this research, which does not necessarily include intervention. Adhering to human rights standards and exercising the right to self-determination in the framework of the responsibility to protect is a foundation to prevent situations that can lead to atrocities and widespread violations of human rights. Thus, this can be considered as the link between the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect. Literature ReviewThe right to self-determination of people has been an important subject of much legal research as a fundamental principle of international law. On the other hand, the responsibility to protect is also among the attractive topics of international law as a new doctrine. The two notions have been separately discussed by researchers such as Antonio Cassese, Jörg Fisch, Yasmine Nahlawi, and Stacey Henderson.It can be claimed that the subject of this article which is an updated version of the corresponding author’s master’s thesis, is an innovative topic in the international law literature and has not been explored before. MethodologyFirstly, a descriptive research method has been used for this research i.e., the characteristics and aspects of the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect have been discussed separately. Secondly, based on the legal research method, the governments’ experiences in different situations have been observed to reach the final research result regarding the commonalities of these two notions. ResultsFrom the international law’s point of view, the internal aspect of the right to self-determination is an erga omnes rule, and its external dimension has been accepted as a jus cogens rule.However, it should be noted that a separatist interpretation of the right to self-determination has no place in the current system of international law. International legal doctrines, governments’ stances, and international documents always emphasize on the importance and priority of the principle of territorial integrity. Further, international peace and security requires that separatist interpretations not be supported. ConclusionToday, respecting human rights and, most importantly, the right to self-determination is a global matter and the international community should contribute to its realization. The right to self-determination can be realized indirectly under the doctrine of responsibility to protect. In other words, the right to self-determination can be applied as a means of preventing the occurrence of crimes that are subject to the responsibility to protect doctrine, and in this regard, the international community can assist and take measures and put them on its agenda to ensure the exercise of this right.The responsibility to protect emphasizes the primary responsibility of governments and the international community to assist other countries in carrying out their sovereign duties and only refers to the element of intervention at the last stage. the international community should come to the understanding that non-interventionist measures and international aid to the governments have a fundamental role and importance in supporting people and strengthening them and are to the benefit of international peace and security. The application of the responsibility to protect in Libya and the remedial secession in Kosovo showed how ineffective and destructive under-developed legal theories can be in practice.On the other hand, the doctrine of responsibility to protect suffers from a lack of clear criteria for intervention which is a problem that the international community should take steps to resolve. In many cases, powerful countries, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, apply double standards towards human rights issues. So, in order to prevent similar tragedies and protect the citizens, the international community should set clear and thorough standards regarding human rights issues and make them binding. However, it should be noted that the concept of cultural diversity should be taken into account In the process of formulating standards because, in issues related to human rights, no fixed standard that could be applied to all.

The practice of the functioning of the United Nations and the actual mechanisms of peacekeeping differ significantly from the theoretical ideas about them. Anna Mikhailovna Evstigneeva, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (UN), who has been dealing with peacekeeping issues for many years, answers a number of important questions about contemporary peacekeeping and peacebuilding in her interview. She argues that while the West is building a “rules-based order,” for Russia the rules are the UN Charter. The key to ensuring the effectiveness of an international organization, according to A.M. Evstigneeva, is the ability of the parties to reach mutually beneficial solutions and to take each other’s interests into account. The rest is a “superstructure,” which, however, is partially enshrined in the doctrine. Dozens of factors (dialogue with civil society, gender, climate, etc.) play a special role, which over time become universal. Often, the beautiful Western theories of liberal peacebuilding do not stand up to the harsh reality; and in a number of cases there is silence on the part of decision-makers about the real situation on the ground. This interview highlights the challenges of the existing system of international peacekeeping in the context of the formation of a multipolar world.

This paper offers a delicate understanding of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle and analyses the status of this significant principle within the international law. The place of the use of force is evaluated within R2P doctrine. The R2P norm and the pillars contained therein will be analysed to set out the legal responsibilities it contains towards member states and the international community, assessing the legality of the responsibilities held by states towards its population in addition to responsibilities owed by states to populations in other states and the obligation from the international community to intervene. Identifying the issues surrounding the principle of R2P in international law and the message it delivers with what it involves and what responsibilities it carries. It also illustrates the importance of the evolution of the concept, and the advances evolving around the principle including the use of military force for humanitarian ends.

Azerbaijan's September 19, 2023 attack on the Republic of Artsakh resulted in the almost total displacement of the indigenous Armenian population, making it one of the most successful genocides in history. For over a year before Azerbaijan's attack, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention viewed Artsakh as the "perfect storm" for genocide prevention and was using as many strategies as possible to urge Western leaders to recognize the threat and take effective action. Any leader willing to challenge Azerbaijan diplomatically would have had the work of many genocide scholars and genocide prevention organizations to back them up. We still believe that coordinated pressure from the Western powers could have had a chance of avoiding genocide and may have resulted in finding a secure, and perhaps independent, space for Artsakh Armenians in their ancestral homeland. This article aims to show how the case of genocide in Artsakh is an object lesson in how diplomatic silences, shaped by geopolitical interests, can provide the power framework in which genocide can easily take place, offer diplomatic cover for the state or organization committing the crime, and normalizing the crime within international relations. It proposes that the genocide in Artsakh ushered in a new "New Imperialism", in which the post-1945 law-based world order is jettisoned for raw power, threatened communities and unwanted peoples are less safe than they were before September 19, 2023, and genocide will become the order of the day - unless we find new mechanisms to prevent it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the article is to analyse the legal conditions of armed intervention under the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The author presented and assessed the effectiveness of undertaking military actions within its framework. It should be emphasized that the armed aspect of the R2P concept has not been broadly analysed in the doctrine. The author discussed the issues of the effectiveness of military intervention on the example of the “Odyssey Dawn” and “Unified Protector” operations in Libya in 2011. He also referred to the concept of applying the military intervention mechanism to the Syrian Arab Republic after 2011. The text indicates that the greatest weakness is the generality of the concept of armed intervention within the R2P concept and the vagueness of its forms of implementation. In the context of the military intervention in Libya, which occurred as a result of the lack of veto by one of the permanent members of the Security Council, the author showed that although the use of the formula of military intervention under the R2P model is possible, it is also reasonable to assume that in the near future in a similar situation, the permanent members of the Security Council will exercise their right of veto.

Twenty years ago, NATO’s intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), taking place without the approval of the UN Security Council (UNSC), challenged the sovereignty and non-interference norms the UN had perceived as international peace and order, until that moment. While the military action served to question existing principles, it simultaneously examined the effectiveness of non-authorization. Moreover, the Kosovo case stimulated one of the most important UN reforms that transformed the concept of sovereignty from right to responsibility. Conceptually, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has largely advanced since then. The transformation shifted the attention from political to sociological peace making society, gender and victims of conflict at the focus of peacebuilding and peace sustaining processes. The juxtaposition of state and societal peace continues in post-conflict Kosovo with both approaches being intermingled: the security debate covers attempts for a peace-building agenda, whereas the formation of a national army is pursued.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been invoked by the Russian Federation in order to justify its 'special military operation' against Ukraine. As a matter of fact, if certain criteria are met, the Responsibility to Protect allows the use of force for humanitarian purposes in a third State in a manner consistent with the international legal framework. This paper aims at analysing Russia's contradictory approach related to this doctrine as well as the illegality of its forcible intervention under international law, included within the R2P framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 20th century was marked by mass murder and crime to humanity, such as genocide, war crime, and ethnic cleansing, resulting in tens of millions of deaths throughout the world. While the objective of establishing the United Nations in 1945 aimed at preventing such crimes, mass murders kept on occurring, as the cases in Bosnia and Rwanda in 1990s. The responsibility to protect (R2P) concept emerged as a response to these failures, by proposing that the sovereignty of a country should be based on the responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than the right to take actions without any intervention from the international world. This research aims at exploring the R2P concept as an attempt to protect human rights in the international humanitarian law context by analyzing the relevant literature and legal norms to discover how this concept can be the basis for protecting human rights under conflict situation and four mass violations of human rights. It used normative legal research method based on international law framework. Two approaches were used, namely conceptual and comparative ones. The research results indicated that R2P concept was the best alternative for humanitarian intervention to protect mankind from such crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In an intra-country conflict, the international community was responsible through preventive and military intervention attempts. The R2P concept was also relevant in international humanitarian law since it gave a clear framework in protecting human rights and preventing mass crimes, especially in relation to the use of military power.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a relatively new international norm that permits state intervention in cases of gross humanitarian violations. While R2P was designed to protect civilians from harm, this paper argues that it is an uneven trade-off for deconstructing state sovereignty. By assessing the moral and practical ramifications of R2P, one can find the prioritisation of vague liberal ethics over institutionalised legal frameworks comes at a grave cost to efficient responses to conflict. Subjective interpretations of morality increase the selectivity of the doctrine which is further corrupted by the political, financial, and militaristic concerns of the intervening countries. This paper also explores the internal legitimacy of states and finds that R2P obfuscates a state’s moral duty. R2P provides the West the ability to self-legitimise and control the narrative while failing to address the root causes of conflict. Therefore, it is crucial to explore alternatives to R2P that could better address the challenges of humanitarian intervention.

This paper offers a delicate understanding of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle and analyses the status of this significant principle within the international law. The place of the use of force is evaluated within R2P doctrine. The R2P norm and the pillars contained therein will be analysed to set out the legal responsibilities it contains towards member states and the international community, assessing the legality of the responsibilities held by states towards its population in addition to responsibilities owed by states to populations in other states and the obligation from the international community to intervene. Identifying the issues surrounding the principle of R2P in international law and the message it delivers with what it involves and what responsibilities it carries. It also illustrates the importance of the evolution of the concept, and the advances evolving around the principle including the use of military force for humanitarian ends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concepts of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect have been formulated aiming to provide an adequate response to an old question: how to respond to violations of rights committed by states on their own subjects. Based on the formulation of the just war or the very conception of humanity, it underlies the difficult relationship between three of the structural principles of Public International Law: sovereignty, use of force and protection of human rights. This article analyzes the evolution of both concepts, the differences between them and the obstacles that hinder their effective application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 20th century was marked by mass murder and crime to humanity, such as genocide, war crime, and ethnic cleansing, resulting in tens of millions of deaths throughout the world. While the objective of establishing the United Nations in 1945 aimed at preventing such crimes, mass murders kept on occurring, as the cases in Bosnia and Rwanda in 1990s. The responsibility to protect (R2P) concept emerged as a response to these failures, by proposing that the sovereignty of a country should be based on the responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than the right to take actions without any intervention from the international world. This research aims at exploring the R2P concept as an attempt to protect human rights in the international humanitarian law context by analyzing the relevant literature and legal norms to discover how this concept can be the basis for protecting human rights under conflict situation and four mass violations of human rights. It used normative legal research method based on international law framework. Two approaches were used, namely conceptual and comparative ones. The research results indicated that R2P concept was the best alternative for humanitarian intervention to protect mankind from such crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In an intracountry conflict, the international community was responsible through preventive and military intervention attempts. The R2P concept was also relevant in international humanitarian law since it gave a clear framework in protecting human rights and preventing mass crimes, especially in relation to the use of military power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prohibition of the use of armed force causes most debates in International Law because it is one of the basic principles, the cornerstone of the current international legal order but also one of the most controversial issues of International Law. Considering the provisions of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, the qualification of the use of armed force as a wrongful act seems clear. In contrast, the concepts of legality and legitimacy regarding the use of force are often flexible and ambiguous which can lead to discretionary use. The aim of this paper is to analyse different situations in which the use of force is allowed, exploring the theoretical and controversial aspects generated by limiting the practical applications of Articles 51 and 42 of the Charter of the United Nations, the only provisions that allow the use of force if restrictive requirements are met.

The condition of humanitarian crises and conflicts around the world is growing tremendously. Today we are dealing with a classic repetition of history to the close calls of world war. Though the UN collective security System tried to solve the contemporary issues, their efforts are deprived of proper effectiveness. If the contemporary crisis of the Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan conflict continues at this speed, it is not very late that the world will face a third world war. Therefore, to avoid a Third World War regarding this issue, the UN and world leaders should take immediate steps to solve this destructive crisis and increase the protection of this crisis. History very rarely teaches people lessons. The Second World War teaches us a destructive form of war. This paper uses the doctrinal methodology to discuss the efficacy of the UN Collective Security System in preventing the next world war. The author analyzed historical implications and different international law concepts to assess the efficacy. The author also tries to discover the strengths and loopholes of the current UN Collective Security System and Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The author identifies the bifurcation of the current world, which may lead to the next world war.

Copyright of International Relations / Uluslararasi Iliskiler is the property of International Relations Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Kepenulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui urgensi penerapan prinsip Tanggung Jawab untuk melindungi (Responsibility to Protect) dalam menangani kasus pemerkosaan sistematik yang terjadi di wilayah yang sedang mengalami sengketa konflik bersenjata internasional (International armed conflict). Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Penelitian ini menemukan fakta bahwa pemerkosaan sistematik telah menjadi strategi peperangan selama berabad-abad dengan wanita dan anak perempuan sebagai korbannya. PBB memperkirakan lebih dari 60.000 wanita diperkosa selama perang saudara di Sierra Leone (1991-2002), 40.000 di Liberia (1989-2003), 60.000 di bekas Yugoslavia (1992-1995), dan setidaknya 200.000 di Republik Demokratik Kongo sejak 1998. Sehingga secara yuridis, pemerkosaan sistematik tergolong ke dalam pelanggaran berat (grave breach) dalam kerangka hukum humaniter Internasional. Selain itu, tergolong pula ke dalam kejahatan perang (war crimes) ataupun kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan (crime against humanity) berdasarkan Statuta Roma 1998. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini merekomendasikan penerapan prinsip Responsibility to Protect sebagai alternatif penyelesaian kasus pemerkosaan sistematik pada sengketa konflik bersenjata Internasional. Kebaruan penelitian ini ialah penyajian analisis topik pemerkosaan sistematik dalam sengketa konflik bersenjata internasional melalui kerangka hukum humaniter internasional, yang mana belum banyak diteliti di Indonesia. Dalam penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan, bahwasanya meskipun telah terdapat instrumen hukum internasional, masih terdapat banyak pelanggaran berat, kejahatan perang, ataupun kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan yang terjadi dalam sengketa konflik bersenjata Internasional. Oleh karena itu, penerapan prinsip Responsibility to Protect menjadi suatu urgensi guna mendorong tanggung jawab negara dalam memberikan perlindungan terhadap korban pemerkosaan sistematik dengan sistem intervensi dalam rangka mencegah dan menghentikan pelanggaran berat yang terjadi dalam konflik bersenjata internasional.

Starting from the observation that the doctrine of Reponsibility to Protect has as its main and paradoxical outcome the collective de-responsibility generated by the "post-bipolar" international system born from the 1989 caesura, the essay critically retraces the historical and theoretical stages of the "humanitarian turn" of politics and the complex interaction between political and moral instances still operating today within global politics. According to the author, these must be observed and analyzed beyond any rigid and absolute dichotomy between sovereignty and humanity. The analysis of the disconnection between the ostentatious universalistic demands at the basis of the humanitarian turn of international politics and the strongly inegalitarian, if not openly hierarchical, aspects characteristic of its concrete methods of implementation allow the Author to deal with the contradictions and betrayed promises of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, exactly twenty years after its first elaboration.

Many in the West, especially in the human rights community, saw the end of the Cold War as a great opportunity for a normative transformation in international relations. They argued that the concept of sovereignty was an anachronism and that a new international regime should be created allowing for easier intervention against states that subject their citizens to violence. It seemed like a relatively straightforward issue of clashing normative principles at fi rst. As the conversation about interventions has evolved, however, it has become increasingly clear that the problem is much more complex. This article examines the set of complex trade-off s between various values and norms related to humanitarian intervention and demonstrates that no interventionist doctrine that balances these values and norms is possible. It empirically examines these tensions in the context of interventions in Kosovo and Libya.

The purpose of the paper is to revisit the origin of the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P) focusing on few cases and reflecting on the troubled journey that it has made maneuvering its structural constraints posed by hegemonic powers and geopolitical manipulations, by employing historical methods in tracking its evolution. The inter-state aggression during the Cold War, largely gave way to war and violence within, after the end of it, rather than between, states. There were two opposing views at the United Nations (UN): those who supported right of humanitarian intervention and those who viewed such a doctrine as an infringement upon national sovereignty. In this regard, R2P remains a developing principle and, the absence of definitive state practice in this area means that states wanting to intervene to protect foreign populations from atrocities are left without clear legal justification for such action. In the absence of UN Security Council authorisation, use of force under the banner of R2P remains contentious. Lastly, the paper discusses the prospects the principle will have in future as constraints and manipulations are still present.

This article examines the relationship between the responsibility to rebuild and post-intervention reconstruction. It aims to determine whether the current interpretation of the responsibility to rebuild is the appropriate framework for attaining the goals of post-intervention reconstruction. The article argues that, despite the urgent need for a post-intervention strategy in the aftermath of humanitarian interventions, the responsibility to rebuild, as it is currently being framed, can end up undermining the goals of post-conflict reconstruction by dissuading states from participating in atrocity prevention, inadvertently increasing atrocity crimes and delegitimizing military humanitarian interventions. The analysis identifies the need for the responsibility to rebuild to incorporate an increased respect for post bellum proportionality and self-determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NATO has an interesting history in dealing with the Human Security concept and its derivates. In a non-formalized past, we have considered various efforts in planning and conducting operations as proving the spirit of Human Security: the effectsbased approach to operations and the comprehensive approach, the counterinsurgency philosophy, civil-military cooperation (CIMIC), and NATO support to civil emergencies. However, this is not close even to the arguments on the "right to intervene", or the "responsibility to protect", allowing the use -- as a last resort -- of the hard power in extreme cases of people endangered by their governments, failing to protect citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. For this, we have the illustrative case of Libya, where NATO had a major stake in the crisis resolution. Currently, the Human Security paradigm is present in NATO's theory and practice, focused on several main lines of effort, in areas NATO conducts operations, missions, or activities. The paper further inquires about the interpretation of Human Security in NATO and its operationalization perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will study about ASEAN’s role on the conflict in Myanmar, specifically Rohingya ethnical conflicts in 2017-2019. In its development, this conflict turns out to be far from over and ASEAN as the regional organization of South-East Asia should take the responsibility to solve this conflict. This paper will be reviewed using descriptive qualitative approach that is based on secondary data sources. Those data sources include academic journals, books, printed and online articles, and also other relevant sources. We concluded that the involvement of ASEAN in solving the conflict in Rohingya was because the responsibility of ASEAN to protect the countries in their region. In the effort to solve the conflict of Rohingya, ASEAN never wandered off the human rights principles. Meanwhile, in the process, ASEAN was assisted by Indonesia to approach it through soft diplomacy and by the United Nations (UN) through the concept of “Responsibility to Protect”. On the other hand, ASEAN also have a special team called ASEAN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (AHA). This team was specifically assigned in Rakhine and making 4 (four) recommendations according physical security, materials security, Rohingya registration, and social unification to prevent the recurrence of horizontal conflict in Myanmar.

This article examines the legal basis for the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) in international law. Accordingly, the article attempts to determine the extent to which various elements of the concept have already been incorporated into existing international instruments as well as in customary international law. It also ascertains the extent to which the concept has been accepted as a binding norm of international law, particularly in view of the burgeoning activities and resolutions concerning its use. The study analyses the existing provisions of major international instruments concerning the responsibility to protect, such as the Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice in its opinions. Finally, as part of the conclusion, the article evaluates the scope and limitations of the concept of R2P under international law.

Copyright of Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional is the property of Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of the paper is to revisit the origin of the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P) focusing on few cases and reflecting on the troubled journey that it has made maneuvering its structural constraints posed by hegemonic powers and geopolitical manipulations, by employing historical methods in tracking its evolution. The inter-state aggression during the Cold War, largely gave way to war and violence within, after the end of it, rather than between, states. There were two opposing views at the United Nations (UN): those who supported right of humanitarian intervention and those who viewed such a doctrine as an infringement upon national sovereignty. In this regard, R2P remains a developing principle and, the absence of definitive state practice in this area means that states wanting to intervene to protect foreign populations from atrocities are left without clear legal justification for such action. In the absence of UN Security Council authorisation, use of force under the banner of R2P remains contentious. Lastly, the paper discusses the prospects the principle will have in future as constraints and manipulations are still present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the legal basis for the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) in international law. Accordingly, the article attempts to determine the extent to which various elements of the concept have already been incorporated into existing international instruments as well as in customary international law. It also ascertains the extent to which the concept has been accepted as a binding norm of international law, particularly in view of the burgeoning activities and resolutions concerning its use. The study analyses the existing provisions of major international instruments concerning the responsibility to protect, such as the Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice in its opinions. Finally, as part of the conclusion, the article evaluates the scope and limitations of the concept of R2P under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) constitutes a real threat to the world, its consequences are disrupting the world order, brutally placed in against a reality with multiple problems. The crisis is at the same time a window of opportunity for the international community to reinforce multilateralism by establishing a common strategy for the health emergency. However, the tensions between the United States and China and the American economic war against the European Union are factors, which hamper the efforts established in this way. This article will highlight the dynamic correlation between the concept of « health security » and the geopolitical and economic challenges.

This study addresses responsibility to protect and the challenges of displaced men in Nigeria. It argues that the challenges facing displaced people in Nigeria as a result of Boko Haram, natural and man-made disasters, as well as the Hausa-Fulani Mayhem are peculiar to all the IDPs irrespective of demographic disparities. It employs the use of qualitative and quantitative research methods drawing data from primary and secondary sources. Administering 256 questionnaires to men within the IDPs camp accompany with well structured interviews and focus group discussions with displaced men in Durumi Area 1 IDP camp Abuja. Secondary sources of data reviews existing literature from journals, online articles, and research projects. Findings show that the challenges of the men population ranging from starvation, water, hunger, electricity, accommodation shortages and lack of sustainable occupation foretell serious human security threats for the country. The study proposes relevant policies for government and other related agencies working with the IDPs; while, concluding that government should collaborate with individuals and organizations in providing vocational skills, that will help alleviate their plights.

This paper aims to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of the current challenges to the rules of the public international law on the use of force. “New wars” or, better to say, armed conflicts are no longer a duel between the rival states, but include a complex mix of internal and international elements, taking place in a globalized environment and involving an increasing number of the state and non-state actors. Recent armed conflicts can be distinguished from conventional wars mostly in terms of their context, roles of the states and non-states actors, their methods, motives, objectives and their victims. There are growing concerns at the failure to respond adequately to modern security threats and humanitarian catastrophes, such as in Rwanda and Syria. Such concerns have led to push the boundaries of the law, seeking to construct a unilateral right to use the force preventively or for humanitarian purposes. The paper examines the concepts of the humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.

Abstract This article analyzes the outcome of Brazil’s contestation of the responsibility to protect, adding to existing literature through an analysis that makes use of recent norms research on possible alternate endings of contestation. As revealed, differentiating between the natures of contestation allows for greater nuance and broader reflections on the possibility of contestation, serving as an avenue for future cooperation.

In this article, I briefly present the multilateral discussion on ‘climate security’ and its relation to the protection of the Amazon. First, the text points out the importance of the Amazon for keeping global climate balance, the drastic change to the environmental agenda of Brazilian diplomacy, and the growing call in international public opinion for an internationally coordinated action to reverse deforestation in the region. Next, it introduces the concept of ‘climate security’, its development within the United Nations Security Council, and its relation to the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P). Finally, based on contextual evidence, I carry out a prospective analysis of the narratives that might be constructed to justify applying this principle to the Brazilian Amazon.

Abstract This research consolidates debates around the impact of international norm contestation and evaluates previous findings. It conceptualises a typology for norms and norm contestation and applies this framework to R2P to test its explanatory effectiveness. The typologies draw on work by Finnemore and Sikkink, as well as the applicatory versus justificatory discourse by Deitelhoff and Zimmermann and Wiener’s modes of contestation, amongst others. It also proposes additional factors such as the location of contestation as well as the commonalities of norm challengers. The recent conceptualisation around norm robustness is found to be only useful in evaluating the strength of norms.

This article analyzes the outcome of Brazil's contestation of the responsibility to protect, adding to existing literature through an analysis that makes use of recent norms research on possible alternate endings of contestation. As revealed, differentiating between the natures of contestation allows for greater nuance and broader reflections on the possibility of contestation, serving as an avenue for future cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent evolution of social media networks has brought to the attention of researchers in the field of security studies new resources and methods for understanding international dynamics, as well as new media actors such as the military forces. Today, the Romanian Armed Forces have their own official Facebook pages through which they produce and promote media content, mainly visual, which reaches a significant number of individuals. Thus, the visual representations that are disseminated in the online environment and, especially on the military social networks, become important sources of knowledge and interpretation of reality, true spaces in which policies are born. The main purpose of this paper is to explore how the "responsibility to protect"* is visually constructed in the photos published by the Romanian Armed Forces on own Facebook pages. To accomplish this objective, photographs illustrating interactions between Romanian soldiers and Afghan children during the Resolute Support Mission were collected. The method used for the analysis of these photographs is visual social semiotics, a recent approach in the study of security issues, which brings to light the meanings hidden in the various modes of representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article concerns on the notion of responsibility to protect (R2P) in Syrian war and what can be expected from the Muslim community. This theme is important to be discussed for the reasons that crisis in Syria has been occurred for almost nine years since it began in March 2011 and it has no end sign in the immediate time. In addition, it caused hundred thousand civilians dead, million people become displaced persons. In addition, the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian war was against the international laws. This paper was written based on the data that was collected using documentary study. Findings of this research reveals that the Syrian civil war had involved various parties including the government, insurgent groups, international fighters, and several countries like the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, some European countries, and other states. This made the situation very complex. The Muslim communities through international organization such as Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) should actively participate in implementing the R2P which include protecting people, promoting human rights issues, and preventing further mass killing as well as military protection.

Should human rights be understood within a specific context? In order words, should the discourse on human rights be historically contingent? If so, isn’t there a risk that they will lose their universal character? I argue that the standard of human rights provided by major documents and treaties of human rights must be respected, but at the same time, there are rights that must be developed in accordance with a particular context and specific needs of the people. Some might object that in contextualizing human rights they run the risk of losing their universal character. The argument of the universal character of human rights does not always meet a unanimous consent of everyone. Some non-Westerners thinkers, for example, reject the idea of the universality of human rights because, they argue, human rights reflect and perpetrate the western culture, which is sometimes at odd with non-western cultures. They then advocate a reconstruction and clarification of the moral, political, and legal status of human rights. This requirement of clarifying the different aspects of human rights status appears in Ingram’s argument when he affirms that the theoretical clarification of the apparent incoherence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regarding the moral, political, and legal status of human rights must be sensitive to the multiple functions and justificatory grounds of human rights. Thus, the leading question to be answered in this paper will be: should there be a definitive list of rights for all contexts and all circumstances?