Search

Many ask if R2P is legally binding or not. By following the development of R2P from 2000-2022 and governments interactions with it throughout those years internationally, regionally and nationally, a perspective is given regarding its development as a norm within international law. The state practice and opinio juris of countries from different regions, representing varying perspectives, and the application of R2P throughout those years, provide the reader with insights on where R2P stands after more than 20 years of being part of the international fora.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has shown the world the critical importance of whether and how to punish heads of state, heads of government, and sundry strong men when accused of crimes of aggression, genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. In End of Immunity, former President of the International Criminal Court, Chile Eboe-Osuji, probes the history and theory of the concept of immunity for heads of state, underscoring tribunal achievements, pointing out gaps in the existing framework of accountability and the hypocrisies that produced them, and offering workable solutions to the loopholes that government leaders still use to escape consequences today.Eboe-Osuji traces the development of international law from the pre-World War I era that left wars of aggression as the prerogative of sovereigns able to wage them through the peacetime conferences of the Hague at the turn of the 20th century, the momentous Article 227 of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, which communicated the resolve of the Allies and Associated Powers to prosecute German Emperor and King of Prussia Kaiser Wilhelm II before an international tribunal, how the legal norms applied in the post-WWII Nuremberg trial transformed the norms of modern international law, how 1990's Africa breathed new life into arguments against immunity for heads of state, and how modern-day Russia flouts those laws with Putin's war of aggression on Ukraine. Going as far back as the Middle Ages and the ancient doctrine of the divine right of kings, and concluding with a fresh new proposal for the ways in which international law can be shored up to prosecute those leaders who wage wars of aggression, Eboe-Osuji investigates the journey of international law's rejection of immunity for anyone – including heads of state in particular – when they are suspected or accused of atrocities that international law has proscribed as crimes. The result is the definitive account of a profoundly vital principle for international relations and global humanity.

This book brings together two important fields in the study of international politics and policy: climate change adaptation and mitigation (climate action) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Both have attracted strong scholarly attention in each of their respective research silos, but there is yet to be a strong research push that explores the relationship between the two.Filling this gap, Ben L. Parr argues that the climate action and the R2P agendas share a common goal: to protect vulnerable human populations from large-scale harm. To substantiate this argument, Parr reveals where the historical, conceptual, and operational parallels exist between the two agendas, and where and when researchers and practitioners from both camps might work together in practice to achieve their common goal in the challenging years ahead. Notably, the book builds on recent efforts by Western governments in the UK, US, and EU to integrate climate action policies into conflict prevention and response policies. To achieve this, the volume situates a variety of climate action policies alongside the 46 policy options found in the R2P operational framework (commonly known as the R2P toolbox) across its prevention, reaction, and rebuilding phases.Climate Change Action and the Responsibility to Protect will be of significant interest to policy-orientated students and scholars, those working at the academic-policy interface in the NGO community, as well as those working in government and international organisations.

While the Security Council has been mandating peacekeepers to protect civilians since 1999, there is still contention on its legal meaning. Even though the concept of ‘protection'can seem self-evident, as the concept of ‘protection'is borrowed language, each body of law will perceive ‘protection'through a different lens. However, as the mandate creates a legal obligation on UN peace missions, a clear understanding of protection is fundamental to ensure performance and accountability.

This book discusses the legal responsibility of UN peacekeepers for the protection of civilians under international legal regimes, particularly international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law, and occupation law. It considers both negative and positive obligations, that is, a duty to respect or not violate a particular right directly and a duty to take positive action to secure or protect a particular right, respectively. In addition, it describes the standards and methods, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, by which actors in UN peacekeeping operations, including the UN, troop contributing countries, and individual peacekeepers, can be held accountable for third-party claims and allegations of criminal misconduct against UN peacekeepers for violations of responsibility in peacekeeping operations. The work will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers, and policy-makers working in the areas of International Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and International Relations.

This book revisits and interrogates the evolution of the Responsibility to Protect in search of the root cause of R2P's failure to date.Employing a critical constructivist lens throughout, the book locates the origin of that apparent failure in the close association of R2P with humanitarian intervention. In returning to the ideational underpinnings and broader ambitions of R2P's architects, the analysis reveals that reducing R2P to little more than a “solution” to the long-standing problem(s) confronting humanitarian intervention betrayed its fundamental purpose: advancing a new norm of, and for, human security provision. Employing a modified version of the norm life-cycle model as a diagnostic tool, the author uncovers the underlying dynamics of R2P's normative stagnation over the past two decades. The book concludes with a prescriptive remedy in the form of a two-part blueprint for reconstructing and reanimating R2P's normative agenda for an international society confronted by mounting and existential threats to humanity.This book will be of much interest to scholars and students of the Responsibility to Protect, human rights, security studies, and international relations in general.

This book adopts a sociolegal and interdisciplinary approach to examine how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has been understood within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).Historically, the international community has struggled to effectively address humanitarian crises worldwide. The concept of the'Responsibility to Protect'(R2P) has emerged over the past two decades as a principle that could guide states'efforts to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises. However, R2P's interpretation varies across different regions, and it remains to be established whether it can successfully achieve its goals. This book adopts an interdisciplinary approach to analyse how R2P has been perceived and applied within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China. In particular, it explores ASEAN's, ASEAN member-states'and China's understanding and implementation of R2P, paying special attention to the 1999 East Timor crisis, the Rohingya crisis, and the West Papua conflict. The book assesses whether R2P has influenced the actions of ASEAN, its member states, and China. At a broader level, the book also explores regional approaches to international law, shedding light on Southeast Asian states'perspectives on this aspect of global governance.This book will be of much interest to students of Responsibility to Protect, Asian politics, human rights, international law, and International Relations in general.

Purging the Odious Scourge of Atrocities explains the growth of a small body of human rights law that bans the use of violence against a state's own population when it is deemed a mass atrocity. These laws are binding on all states regardless of whether they have accepted it by signing treaties, or whether it is consistent with widespread state practice. Yet, this challenges the doctrine of consent, which has traditionally been the foundation of international law. Bruce Cronin argues that qualitative changes in the form of global governance are leading to an expansion in the theoretical underpinnings of international law and its role in contemporary world politics. Specifically, in limited and well-defined areas of international law, states have begun to recognize the authority of collective international consensus over individual state consent as the source of some legal rules. Cronin supports this theory by examining the degree to which the international community has, via multilateral conferences among states, developed a consensus around the legal control of'excessive internal state violence'--that is, a level of coercive force that the international community considers to be disproportionate and illegitimate for pursuing state interests within its own borders. These practices, which the Genocide Convention refers to as an'odious scourge', include widespread, systematic attacks on civilian populations; violent persecution of defined groups (including genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid); torture; and the violation of civilian immunity in internal armed conflicts. In these cases, state action is subject to general international law that overrides their consent. By allowing us to rethink the mechanisms that give international law actual force, Purging the Odious Scourge of Atrocities promises to reshape our understanding of why states are required to abide by human rights norms they never consented to by treaty or customary practice.

This book contributes to existing debates on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by demonstrating new advocacy strategies and the greater interconnectedness of various R2P proponents. In 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted a new resolution on R2P, which reaffirmed its commitment from the 2005 World Summit Outcome and put R2P on the annual agenda. For many R2P proponents, this was another manifestation of worldwide R2P relevance and of growing support among UN members to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Yet the existing crises in Myanmar, Venezuela, Belarus, Syria and many others revealed the widening gap between the discourse and practice. This book aims to find out what keeps the concept alive despite its indisputable pitfalls. In contrast to existing studies that treat the R2P endorsement or contestation as intertwined processes of norm evolution, it argues that the status of R2P has been accomplished by the conscious politics of its advocates operating in complex global networks. As such, the book puts emphasis on the agency of R2P champions and examines who keeps the idea resonating and how they manage to preserve its worldwide relevance. Rather than proposing a new model of advocacy, the book aims to pinpoint the politics of R2P's circulation, the importance of individual R2P champions and their interconnectedness through innovative forms of cooperation within complex networks. This book will be of much interest to students of the R2P, diplomacy, human rights, foreign policy and International Relations.

This book provides a systematic analysis of reform measures aimed at strengthening the implementation of the ‘Responsibility to Protect'(R2P) doctrine, utilising a cosmopolitan lens.In 2005, member states of the United Nations (UN) accepted a ‘Responsibility to Protect'against four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. Despite this commitment, mass atrocities remain a pervasive aspect of the international landscape. In addressing R2P reform, the book utilises a ‘transitional cosmopolitan'lens. The aim of this transitional cosmopolitan approach is to promote incremental progress towards solving moral problems by operating within particular contexts and practical barriers to change. Three areas for reform are explored: the UN Security Council P5's power of veto, to prevent the veto obstructing timely and decisive R2P response action; the powers of the UN General Assembly as an alternative means for responding to mass atrocity situations; and the establishment of an ‘R2P Commission'to hold states accountable for their R2P commitments. These are not advocated as the definitive areas for R2P reform. However, each of the recommendations made can contribute at least some positive progress towards a more cosmopolitan application of the R2P that would help in curbing mass atrocity and improving the protection of fundamental human rights.This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, genocide, humanitarian protection, and International Relations in general.

Despite repeated declarations of ‘never again'in response to the commission of atrocities, civilians have continued to be targeted by their leaders and opposition groups. The international law principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, when taken at their highest, require States to stand idle and not intervene in another State regardless of what atrocities may be occurring there. This traditional legal view is being challenged by an emerging practice of States choosing to respond in non-forceful ways, inspired by the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Drawing on R2P, this book introduces and develops an original conceptual tool –intercession –to capture and explain this change in State practice and the impact of R2P on the development of international law. Through a close examination of State practice, the work explores whether there has been an expansion in the permissible measures and situations in which States can intervene, without using force, in response to atrocity crimes occurring in other States. This book concludes that the development of the secondary duty on the international community under R2P provides the greatest opportunity to progress the R2P framework in a meaningful way, which will have a significant impact on the protection of populations from atrocity crimes. The book will be essential reading for students, researchers and policymakers working in the areas of international law, international relations, humanitarian law, and peace and security studies.

This edited volume critically examines the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a guiding norm in international politics. After NATO's intervention in Libya, against the backdrop of civil wars in Syria and Yemen, and because of the cynical support for R2P by states such as Saudi Arabia, this norm is the subject of heavy criticism. It seems that the R2P is just political rhetoric, an instrument exploited by the powerful states. Hence, the R2P is being challenged. At the same time, however, institutional settings, normative discourses and contestation practices are making it more robust. New understandings of responsibility and the politics of protection are creating new normative spaces, patterns of legitimacy, and norm entrepreneurs, thereby reinforcing the R2P. This book's goals are to discuss the R2P's roots, institutional framework, and evolution; to reveal its shortcomings and pitfalls; and to explore how it is exploited by certain states. Further, it elaborates on the R2P's strength as a norm. Accordingly, the contributions presented here discuss various ways in which the R2P is being challenged or confirmed, or both at once. As the authors demonstrate, these developments concern not only diplomatic communication and political practices within international institutions, but also to normative discourses. Furthermore, the book includes chapters that reevaluate the R2P from a normative standpoint, e.g. by proposing cosmopolitan standards as a guide for states'external behavior. Other contributors reassess the historical evidence from U.N. negotiations on the R2P principle, and the productive or restrictive role of institutions. Discussing new issues relating to the R2P such as global and regional power shifts or foreign policy, as well as the phenomenon of authoritarian interventionism under the R2P umbrella, this book will appeal to all IR scholars and students interested in humanitarianism, norms, and power. By analyzing the status quo of the R2P, it enriches and broadens the debate on what the R2P currently is, and what it ought to be.

This book builds upon Foucauldian scholarship's compelling interrogations that have contributed to the changing conceptualization of the premises of the discipline of International Relations. This epistemological ‘glasnost'facilitates the analysis of the United Nations General Assembly endorsed ‘responsibility to protect'(R2P) as not merely a security but a security/development measure. This book unpacks the conditions that on one hand necessitate such measures and on the other hand, allow the subsequent dilution of their radical promise. This framing and analysis of R2P has implications beyond R2P. Increasingly, citizens converted into populations are shepherded by the state to chambers of partial, if not total surrender of civil liberties, standard of living, and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated such measures for people in the Global South, who since the inception of the post Second World War order continue to await their turn to be the beneficiary ofdevelopment. The development, initially prescribed by the modernization theorists, echoed subsequently in the 1980s by the good governance promoter—World Bank—continues to elude most in the Global South. Indeed, the region's political and economic instability is often the site that renders as a truism, Foucault's upending of Clausewitz's dictum—‘War is the pursuit of politics by other means'—with ‘Politics is the pursuit of war by other means.'The thanatopolitics (politics of death) of these ‘failed,'‘failing,'or ‘flailing,'states, is the reason why their populations are seen to be in frequent need for the operationalization of the international community's ‘responsibility to protect.'

This edited volume addresses the broader aspects of the political and social landscape, human rights violations, accountability and advocacy efforts, and humanitarian challenges faced by the Rohingya from Myanmar. The work brings together different voices of legal, policy, and international affairs experts to construct a framework which addresses the complex and nuanced issues comprising the Rohingya crisis. Although there is recognition that international legal mechanisms are moving forward more quickly than anticipated, these processes do not constitute standalone sustainable solutions. Myanmar's myriad political, social cohesion, development and security challenges are likely to persist even as justice and accountability processes move forward. Thus, this book project is premised on the consensus that the international community should complement international justice mechanisms by looking toward creative and multi-faceted approaches in addition to justice and accountability.This timely contribution will be of interest to academics, researchers, development practitioners, and human rights organizations.

This book explores the relationship between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), challenging the assumption that they are always mutually reinforcing or complementary, and examining instead the many tensions which arise between the immediate imperative of saving lives, and the more long-term prospect of punishing perpetrators and preventing future conflicts through deterrence.Around the world, audiences in the mid-1990s watched the mass atrocities unfolding in Rwanda and Srebrenica in horror and disbelief. Emerging from these disasters came an international commitment to safeguard and protect vulnerable communities, as laid out in the R2P principle, and an international responsibility to punish perpetrators, with the establishment of the ICC. The book provides context-independent proposals for resolving contradictions between the two principles, suggesting that focusing on timing and sequencing in invoking international R2P and ICC actions could facilitate the easing of tensions. Drawing on examples from Uganda, Kenya, and Darfur, the book applies International Relations concepts and theories in order to deepen our understanding of international responses to mass atrocities. Ultimately the book concludes that a'Protection First, Justice Later'sequence approach is necessary for managing the tension and facilitating more effective and consistent international responses.This book makes an important contribution to discussions and debates surrounding international responses to genocide and mass atrocities. It will be of special interest to scholars, students and policymakers in International Relations, Global Governance, African Studies, International Development, Human Rights and International Criminal Law.

This book focuses on measures pertaining to the three-pillar implementation strategy of R2P and examines how and to what extent the three pillars have been practised. Rich in its geographical scope, this edited book provides a critical analysis of R2P practice over the last two decades by focusing on representative cases from different regions. Analysing not only recent and/or underexplored cases but also widely studied cases from a fresh and alternative perspective, it sheds light on the depth and scope of the norm as well as the variety of actors involved and how they impact R2P practice. Diverging from most accounts, this edited book does not approach the cases as a ‘success'or ‘failure'of R2P. By studying the background to the conflicts and making assessments on a pillar-by-pillar basis, each chapter addresses the root causes, traces the process of implementation, investigates the actions of the actors involved, identifies elements of success and failure and finally questionsthe sustainability of the protection provided to date. Meanwhile, the conceptual chapters complement the case analyses through an overall evaluation of R2P's first two decades and the progress achieved so far with the aim to draw lessons for future implementations of R2P.

This book focuses, for the first time ever, on the protection roles of human rights NGOs since the establishment of the United Nations and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also looks at how NGOs are responding to future challenges such as artificial Intelligence, robots in armed conflicts, digital threats, and the protection of human rights in outer space. Written by leading NGO human rights practitioners from different parts of the world, it sheds light on the multiple roles of the leading pillar of the global human rights movement, the Non-Governmental Organizations.'This is a rich and wonderful production, a great magnum opus that will continue to test the scrutiny of all times'Professor Theo van Boven, Professor Emeritus Law, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.

What motivates states to protect populations threatened by mass atrocities beyond their own borders? Most often, states and their representatives appeal to the principle of common humanity, acknowledging a conscience-shocking quality that demands a moral response. But though the idea of a common humanity is powerful, the question remains: to what extent is it effective in motivating action?The Limits of Common Humanity provides an ambitious interdisciplinary response to this question, theorizing the role of humanity as a motivational concept by building on insights from international relations, political philosophy, and international law. Through this analysis, Samuel Jarvis examines the influence the concept of humanity has had on the creation and mission of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) commitment, while highlighting the challenges that have restricted its application in practice. By providing a new framework for thinking about how political, legal, and moral arguments interact during the process of collective decision-making, Jarvis explores the contradictory ways in which states approach the protection of human beings from mass atrocity crimes, both domestically and internationally.In the context of a rapidly changing global order, The Limits of Common Humanity is a timely reappraisal of the R2P concept and its future application, arguing for a more politically motivated response to human protection that moves beyond an appeal for morality.

This book examines the parallel development and interaction between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), assessing this relationship over time and through case studies of Darfur, Libya, and Syria. The similarities and connections between the doctrine and the Court have been highlighted by UN bodies, the organs of the Court, and scholars, yet their relationship and common impact on international law have been less explored. This book fills this gap in presenting an overview of how the development of RtoP and the ICC affect various branches of international law. The research shows that while the doctrine and the Court experienced significant implementation problems in their first decades of life, they nonetheless have the potential to contribute to the historical evolution of international law in combining their values of promoting international peace and protecting human rights. This interdisciplinary study will be useful for scholars of international law and international relations. It will also be beneficial to persons working for international organisations and for civil society organisations focused on the activity of the ICC and on the development of RtoP.

Seit einiger Zeit sind humanitäre Militäreinsätze verstärkt im Fokus der Geschichtswissenschaft. Die Frage nach den frühneuzeitlichen Wurzeln der humanitären Intervention ist dabei lange am Rande behandelt worden. Neuere Forschungen zeigen aber, dass militärische Gewalt zwischen 1500 und 1800 nicht selten mit dem Schutz fremder Untertanen legitimiert wurde. Hier setzt die Studie von Julian Katz an und untersucht mit dem anglo-spanischen Krieg (1585-1604) ein Fallbeispiel, bei dem beide Parteien ihre Kriegsführung als Schutzintervention zugunsten der Untertanen des Gegners rechtfertigten. Die Begründung der Intervention erfolgte anhand drei wesentlicher argumentativer Kategorien: Sicherheit, Recht und Religion/Konfession. Möglich wurde dies durch grenzübergreifende Dynamiken der nachreformatorischen Glaubenskonflikte, die neue Allianzen zwischen Herrschenden und konfessionsverwandten Untertanen anderer Souveräne hervorbrachten. Die Analyse der Entwicklung und Anwendung dieser Rechtfertigungskategorien wirft ein Schlaglicht auf zentrale Normen der politischen Kultur und Mächtebeziehungen im frühneuzeitlichen Europa und liefert einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Verständnis internationaler Politik während des konfessionellen Zeitalters.

The question if states should intervene in massive humanitarian emergencies without a legal right to do so, is still object of an important debate in the theory and practice of international relations. This situation has not changed with the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect'norm, which stopped short of a right to intervene without a Security Council authorisation. The book assesses the impact of such unauthorised humanitarian interventions on international society and regions; it is written in the context of the English School of International Relations. Based on empirical studies the author argues that they can be progressive-constructive for international order, if conducted with explicit legitimacy, integrity, and great power participation. The argument is based on the analysis of six cases conducted between 1946 and 2005. Specific consideration is given to the cases of Liberia (1990) and Kosovo (1999). In sum, the book contributes to the solidarism-pluralism debate and the discourse on humanitarian interventions.