Search

Scholars look to early modern canonical texts to understand the philosophical underpinnings of R2P. Meanwhile, critiques argue these origins couch Western imperial intentions. This article complicates the story by returning to a pivotal historical moment – the Spanish encounter with the Aztecs – to explore protective war from an overlooked angle: that of Spain's indigenous allies, the Tlaxcaltecas. Despite being oppressed by the imperialistic Aztecs, canonical Western texts related to R2P and post-colonial critiques both elide the Tlaxcaltecas' precarious agency – the rights and duties moulded by endemic structures of violence before, during, and after protective intervention – by problematically embracing simple binaries of European oppressor and indigenous oppressed. Restoring the Tlaxcaltecas to the story complicates tropes about imperial projections of force and the pervasive assumption in R2P discussions of the 'innocent oppressed'. Our conclusions provide new perspective from which to view future Pillar 3 dilemmas by recognising that the protected sometimes have a bellicose role to play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The twenty-first century has brought an upsurge in intellectual exile due to protracted crises: important migrant flows from Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela, to name a few, include professionals with huge integration challenges due to collective trauma, language and recertification barriers. Based on original research with intellectual exiles in Canada, underemployment provokes emotional and physical damage that can be avoided through a more encompassing approach to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). I propose a model to redefine R2P in terms of hospitality and protection of people displaced by crises, including recognising their past credentials. Our model contributes to previous literature on skilled migration, bridging the fields of conflict resolution and the ethnography of forced displacement. I propose that credential recognition should be an integral part of R2P. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, there are certain tendencies in a significant number of regimes today that indicate a shift away from liberal democracy, the rule of law, equality, and justice. This threatens international human rights, advancing towards totalitarianism. The technologies available to totalitarian regimes today for control, intimidation, indoctrination, and mass manipulation are far more advanced than their earlier counterparts. It is typically led by a charismatic dictator and a single political party that uses powerful narratives of blame, hate speech, instilling fear, and scapegoating to seise or maintain power at any cost. That being so, amid contemporary global shifts to totalitarianism, human rights abuses persist worldwide despite the ratification of so many international treaties. This piece engages in critically analysing the situation faced by the targeted group of citizens who live under the rules of resurgent totalitarian states. The study further examines the reasons why certain countries and communities get along well with their counterparts while others appear to be breeding grounds, what role governments, politicians, and leaders play in the development and support of group divisions and ideologies of social difference, and how these ideologies lead to the creation of a destructive culture and infrastructure on the path to large-scale bloodshed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

This paper examines the circumstances under which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adjust peace operations mandates to safeguard civilians during mass atrocities. Peacekeepers are usually deployed where civilians face threats from rebels and/or government forces. The literature shows that, with adequate numbers, peacekeepers effectively protect human lives. Additionally, the norms of Protection of Civilians (PoC) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) create expectations that missions will be adjusted to protect individuals at grave risk. The paper evaluates cases where PKO were active during the occurrence of targeted mass killings (TMK), covering the years from 2006 to 2017. Using a qualitative mixed-methods approach, this study relies on the TMK dataset from the Australian National University and the Peacekeeping Mandates (PEMA) database to compare the timelines of PKO and spot whether mandates were changed after mass atrocities with new tasks to protect civilians. The paper also briefly assesses the case of South Sudan to evaluate the congruence between mass atrocity triggers and mandate adjustments. Our analysis aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing the UNSC's decision-making process in adjusting peace operation mandates to protect civilians during mass atrocities and its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The connection between climate change and atrocities has recently attracted scholarly attention. To illuminate the constraints of R2P as a response to climate-induced crises, I examine two debates on the applicability of R2P to natural disasters utilising Quentin Skinner's ideas on intentions and the English School concepts of pluralism and solidarism. I propose an idea of R2P as a social contract of which the English School concepts provide competing readings and study the debates through this framework. I examine how pluralist and solidarist convictions were used in arguing for the same conception of the scope of R2P. Although it was broadly agreed that the concept did not apply to natural disasters, the statements given exposed a division of intentions: whereas solidarists sought to keep R2P alive, pluralists strived to safeguard sovereign rights. I argue that despite R2P's narrow focus, the links between climate change and atrocities should not be ignored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decades after the African Union adopted the Constitutive Act and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), mass atrocities continue to go unchecked in Africa. The continent hosts a rising number of unresolved conflicts and humanitarian crises, rendering the promise of 'African solutions to African problems' mere rhetoric. This article analyses both the complementary features of the Constitutive Act and R2P, which provide the AU with the power to prevent and stop mass atrocity crimes, and the challenges which continue to impede it from successfully upholding its responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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.

Even as the protection of civilians becomes a widely held norm, there is substantial variation in public support for humanitarian policy efforts. We use a survey experiment in Sweden to gain insights into this puzzle. Our survey confirms that citizens generally support military, but particularly non-military, means of civilian protection. Yet, we also find that support is partly particularized. Specifying that civilians may have ties to extremist groups (as victims or supporters) reduces support for proposals to provide humanitarian aid, contribute to UN observer missions and accept refugees. We trace this reduced support to lower moral obligation and higher threat perceptions. In contrast to expectations, respondents do not prioritize the protection of co-nationals, or women and children. Manipulation checks suggest the explanation that perceptions of who constitutes a civilian are subjective. Our findings provide insights into the domestic political determinants of atrocity prevention abroad. [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]

For years, Africa has faced several major human rights violations that have compromised the peace and security of civilians. The northern province of Cabo Delgado in Mozambique has been affected by insurgencies since 2017 in which the population and government institutions have been subjected to violent armed attacks by Islamist militants. Due to interstate military instability, these attacks have resulted in mass human rights violations and have left the Mozambican government with minimal capacity to protect civilians and provide basic needs and services. The vulnerability of the civilians exacerbates the impact of these attacks because they are mainly made up of war displaced persons, families that are still trying to recover from Cyclone Kenneth which occurred in 2019 and women and children. Although the Mozambican government has made attempts to put an end to the attacks over the past years through the deployment of the Mozambican Defence and Security Forces, they failed to put an end to the human rights violations due to the overpowering attacks of the Islamist militants. Growing calls for the African Union (AU), Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the international community to take action through humanitarian intervention and for countries near Mozambique, like South Africa and Tanzania to also take action considering the potential for the insurgencies to spread into the country or at least impact them have given the principle of responsibility to protect in Southern Africa a new precedent. With that said, the purpose of this research paper is to explore the role of the principle of responsibility on the AU, SADC, the international community and other African countries to protect civilians of Cabo Delgado, Mozambique. This question will be considered in light of the need to uphold and respect state sovereignty to make decisions regarding country-based conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout history, the idea of human rights has changed, giving rise to many generations of rights that have been influenced by distinctive historical settings. Although the initial emphasis was on preserving individual liberty, ideas of equality and solidarity were later adopted. The development of new categories for the protection of human rights, such as the right to privacy and the habeas corpus, was required by the progress of information and communication technologies in contemporary society. New generations of rights, addressing important concerns like digital citizenship, access to healthcare, and environmental protection, are expected to arise as social changes continue. The international dimension of human rights is also important in international relations. Especially since the final stages of the Cold War, the process of globalization and the post-Cold War era, human rights have become increasingly significant in the relationships among international actors. However, there are considerable challenges to achieving the global aim of respect for human rights and putting it into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

This article takes as its starting point the support for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) expressed during the General Assembly's 2022 debate on the R2P, and the express interest of states in shifting discussions about the R2P away from debate about the principle's normative content and status, towards implementation. It asserts that efforts to advance the implementation of R2P face three key obstacles. First, the R2P is insufficiently defined, leaving room for damaging misperceptions about the R2P to be sustained. Second, states have not been supported to translate their in-principal commitment to the R2P into national strategies or plans. Third, the R2P is not sufficiently institutionalised either within the United Nations (UN) or regional organisations. Drawing on the atrocity prevention literature as well as the policy and practice of states, this article proposes a three-part strategy for advancing implementation of the R2P, responding to these three identified challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With a prolonged war being played out in Sudan at the expense of civilian lives it is time to revisit the framework of the Responsibility to Protect and assess its merits in the new Sudan context. This article argues that through the structures of the United Nations, the Responsibility to Protect framework, the African Union and the African Union Constitutive Act, legal instruments can and should be implemented to stop the atrocities occurring. It provides examples from recent history that serve as a reference for deploying a peacekeeping stabilisation force in Sudan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the Responsibility to Protect has become increasingly intersectional with over two decades of research; however, there remains a blind spot on the persecution of queer people. This is surprising given that queer people have been persecuted in atrocity crimes as far back as the Holocaust. While the field of genocide studies has recently begun to engage with this area, we frame queer persecution more broadly around the four R2P crimes. In this article we set out the rationale and urgency for including a queer lens in the prevention of atrocity crimes. This is not only about a focus on queer people; we argue for a queer politics and ethics that ceaselessly interrogates all relations of power. We outline the scale of the gap in academic research, policy and state understandings of R2P. Since R2P is often framed as a foreign policy matter by western states, with the global South as the object of R2P, we include two case-studies on escalating persecution against LGBTI+ people in Europe: the United Kingdom and Hungary. We argue that the R2P research and policy communities should remove what we call the 'cishetronormative blindfold' and engage more broadly with intersectional approaches to atrocity prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary reflects on the 3-pillar strategy for the implementation of the R2P, put forward by the UN Secretary-General in 2009. It outlines three problems with the 3-pillar strategy. First, fear of pillar 3 undermines support for R2P in its entirety; second, the 3-pillar strategy puts the emphasis on what the international community can do to States if they fail, rather than what all States should do all the time; and third, the 3-pillar approach assumes for the most part that where atrocities are being committed, either the territorial State or non-State actors are to blame. This commentary describes an alternate framing, adopted in the R2P 'Framework for Action', produced by the Asia Pacific Centre and the Global Centre for R2P last month. That framework describes what States should do to better protect populations from atrocity crimes across four spheres of action: (1) domestic laws, policies and institutions; (2) bilateral cooperation and influencing; (3) regional cooperation and influencing; and (4) multilateral cooperation. The approach taken in the framework aims to shift perceptions about R2P from a responsibility that is owned and actioned (or not) by the international community at large, to a responsibility that is owned and actioned by individual States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contestations on a norm sometimes weaken the consensus on the norm, while other times strengthen it. The literature demonstrates that legal norms are more resilient in the face of contestations. This study argues that regardless of the norm's legal nature, the use of legal language and argumentation in the contestation processes increases the norm's resilience by facilitating a renewed agreement on the norm's validity. The evolution of the human protection norm, which regulates the international use of force for humanitarian purposes, is examined through comparative discourse analysis of two contestation periods in Kosovo (1998–1999) and Libya (2011–2013) interventions. While the legal nature of contestations after the Kosovo crisis revealed the inadequacies of the humanitarian intervention framework and led to the development of a stronger consensus under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), non-legal contestations following the Libya crisis did not yield constructive outcomes and ended with practical disappearance of R2P as a basis of military intervention. The article concludes that the concept of process legality has explanatory power for enlightening the contradicting consequences of norm contestations, as well as a potential for guiding the methods of norm proponents. [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.

By combining insights from social constructivist IR theories and postcolonial theory, the article addresses the issue of Russia's appropriation of Western political vocabulary in the cases of Russia's discourse on Eurasian economic integration and humanitarianist discourse of R2P employed during and after the Russo-Georgian war in August 2008. The view that mimicry and subversion are the motives behind Russia's behavior is taken further by emphasizing the relevance of recognition for Russia's identity quest. Thus, we argue that through plugging into the discourse of the hegemon and partially reinterpreting it, Russia attempted to demonstrate the entitlement to shape the language which would ultimately confirm its belonging to the great power club. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Since its admission as a member of ASEAN in 1997, the human rights situation in Myanmar has been a major concern of the organisation. ASEAN has had to respond to external reactions and pressures calling for decisive action on various crises in Myanmar, notably the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the 2008 Cyclone Nargis humanitarian disaster, the clashes between Rakhine and Rohingya in 2012, and the military operations against the Rohingya in 2017. In the aftermath of the 1 February 2021 coup in Myanmar, ASEAN once again confronts the challenge of expectations to prevent further atrocities in the country. Myanmar's internal situation has occasioned debate on norms and principles in the ASEAN Charter, and tested the limits of ASEAN's decision-making processes. Through its Myanmar experience, ASEAN has set new precedents in its regional diplomacy toward defiant members. However, ASEAN's leverage and limitations in its Myanmar response will continue to be confined to the diplomatic, humanitarian and peaceful interventions related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that are being currently employed in the post-2021 coup situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For instance, while State B may have the military capacity to intervene, it may still be too risky for B to intervene alone, or doing so may be very costly for the citizens of State B. As in the Dangerous Beach cases, B could perhaps ask other states to join in a "coalition of the willing." For example, the financial costs faced by militaries include the costs of transport or equipment, whereas the financial costs faced by civilians (including neutral civilians, e.g., in neighboring countries) include the cost of replacing damaged property and the cost of lost business. Keywords: duty to rescue; Good Samaritan; humanitarian intervention; just war theory; responsibility to protect EN duty to rescue Good Samaritan humanitarian intervention just war theory responsibility to protect 183 200 18 06/06/23 20230601 NES 230601 INTRODUCTION The academic debate on armed humanitarian intervention has, in the last 20 or so years, largely moved on from the question of whether it can sometimes be permissible to intervene in another state (i.e., whether there is a right to intervene), to questions regarding, for instance, the existence of a duty to intervene, the allocation of the responsibility to intervene, and so on. So if we only look at country A and country B, or country A and country C, and so on - the kinds of assessments the individual rescue analogy would have us consider - we would be likely to conclude that rescue, while permissible, cannot be required in this case, given that for each country B, C, and so on, rescue would not be required.[2] However, Dangerous Beach shows us that there is another way to look at this case. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Drawing on history and International Relations, this article considers how states might respond to genocide in a more realist, post-liberal international order (LIO). It argues that even within an emergent realist international order (RIO) that downgrades normative commitments to fundamental human rights, unchecked genocide will continue to pose a threat to international peace and security and states will be interested in halting it. Within an emergent RIO, many of the non-coercive tools for halting genocide made available by liberal order will be constrained. Yet, scholars have in any case found that where genocidal-type violence has already begun, non-coercive tools are rarely effective (Bellamy and McLoughlin, 2022; Broache and Cronin-Furman, 2021). This article suggests that within an RIO which encourages greater amounts of self-help, regional and local actors will have realpolitik motivations for undertaking military interventions which halt genocides occurring in their neighbourhood. While such dynamics are observable during earlier period of international history, an emergent RIO will also benefit from the persistence of fundamental norms such as the prohibition on genocide. Given these factors, and while it will be highly non-ideal, an emerging RIO might retain the possibility of effectively responding to some genocides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to re-theorize the evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in the UN through to 2011, the apogee of liberal interventionism in the post-Cold War period. Contrary to a common argument in existing literature, and notwithstanding the adoption of the concept as an annual agenda item of the General Assembly, international contestation is not about implementation as neatly separated from meaning, but rather definition or interpretation. To better understand the boundaries of intergovernmental understanding, we need to interrogate the language or terms of the debate, particularly the ways in which those terms have been practiced. There have been two Responsibilities to Protect in international society. A discursive practice called Southern RtoP, traced through UN-based political dialogue, contests a meaning that has been prevalent for 20 years at least: that of Northern RtoP. This article shows evaluative nuance and data from the perspective of the Global South and provides a discursive history of an ongoing non-aligned protest against a NATO-associated theory of defeasible sovereignty. Deux responsabilités de protéger [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]