Search

In the throes of war, protecting such cultural heritage as the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Mostar Bridge, the Timbuktu libraries and Palmyra supposedly is a priority on the international public policy agenda; but government responses so far have been limited to deploring such destruction. This article explores the evolving, albeit contested, norm of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) and its relevance for cultural heritage. There is no need for a hierarchy of protection - civilians or culture - because the juxtaposition is as erroneous as choosing between people and the environment. This essay begins with a discussion of cultural heritage and defines the scope for the application of any new international normative consensus. It then explores why R2P, in the original concept of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), is an appropriate framework for thinking about cultural protection, despite considerable political headwinds. It then examines the current opportune political moment and existing legal tools. Finally, there is a brief consideration of the obstacles facing the creation of a better framework for cultural protection in zones of armed conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses military humanitarianism in the form of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in relation to the lack of international humanitarian intervention in Syria's Civil War as of 2013. Topics include the support of the United Nations (UN) for the R2P approach, criticism of R2P as a justification for imperialism, and international intervention in Libya's Civil War in 2011. Other topics include humanitarian intervention in the Central African Republic (CAR), lack of agreement within the UN Security Council, and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

The article analyzes reactions to the report on humanitarian interventions entitled "The Responsibility to Protect, issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Prospects for future humanitarian interventions are analyzed. It is noted that the report has failed in the political goal of consolidating the consensus on conditions for humanitarian interventions after the events of the 1990s. The effects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq on humanitarian discourse are also reviewed. It is concluded that the concept of a responsibility to protect civilians in extreme humanitarian emergencies survived in the September 2001 event and the in the Afghan War.

Describes the Kosovo Report which is about the humanitarian war waged by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Kosovo, Serbia in 1998. Details on the complex moral, political and operational context of the international response in Kosovo; Assertions of the lessons learned from the war.

The article discusses the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine that guides when humanitarian interventions should be done and how the world has seen too little humanitarian intervention. It explains the interagency mechanism Atrocity Prevention Board (APB) established by U.S. President Barack Obama which aims to facilitate rapid reaction in the U.S. government to prevent mass atrocities. The author also presents risks and rewards associated with humanitarian interventions. The discretionary powers given to the Security Council to define what constitutes a threat to peace and security are highlighted.

Reflects on role of the United Nations (UN) in managing global security. Responsibility of UN in evaluating humanitarian intervention and multilateralism; Issues surrounding international security; Reforms on the UN Security Council proposed by the High-Level Panel on Threat, Challenges and Changes.