Responsibility to Protect E-Book

Alex J. Bellamy

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 543

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

At the 2005 UN World Summit, world leaders endorsed the international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), acknowledging that they had a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide and mass atrocities and pledging to act in cases where governments manifestly failed in their responsibility. This marked a significant turning point in attitudes towards the protection of citizens worldwide.

This important new book charts the emergence of this principle, from its origins in a doctrine of sovereignty as responsibility, through debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and the findings of a prominent international commission, and finally through the long and hard negotiations that preceded the 2005 commitment. It explores how world leaders came to acknowledge that sovereign rights entailed fundamental responsibilities and what that acknowledgment actually means. The book goes on to analyze in detail the ways in which R2P can contribute to the global effort to end genocide and mass atrocities. Focusing on the prevention of these crimes and the improvement of the world’s reaction to them, the book explores the question of how to build sustainable peace in their aftermath. Alex J. Bellamy argues that although 2005 marked an important watershed, much more work is needed to defend R2P from those who would walk away from their commitments and – in the words of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – to translate the principle ‘from words into deeds’.

This fascinating book will appeal to students and scholars of international relations, international affairs, human rights and humanitarian emergencies, as well as anyone concerned about the protection of civilians on a global scale

Leseprobe

Responsibility to Protect

Responsibility to Protect

The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities

ALEX J. BELLAMY

polity

Copyright © Alex J. Bellamy 2009

The right of Alex J. Bellamy to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 2009 by Polity Press

Polity Press

65 Bridge Street

Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK.

Polity Press

350 Main Street

Malden, MA 02148, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-5855-1

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Typeset in 11.25/13 pt Dante

by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: www.polity.co.uk

For Sara

diligo usquequaque

Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Introduction

Chapter 1

Sovereignty and Human Rights

Chapter 2

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

Chapter 3

The 2005 World Summit

Chapter 4

Prevention

Chapter 5

Reaction

Chapter 6

Rebuilding

Conclusion

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

This book had its genesis in Toronto, was drafted mostly in Brisbane, completed in Geneva and revised for the final time back in Brisbane. Along the way we launched the Asia–Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect in Bangkok. I’m grateful to the University of Queensland for providing the time and wherewithal to complete this book.

Although I had worked in 2005–6 on the relationship between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and humanitarian intervention, especially in relation to the crisis in Darfur, it was a superb conference organised by the Peace and Conflict Society at the University of Toronto in early 2007 which showed me that R2P’s potential extended well beyond the question of armed intervention and that the protection of civilians from genocide and mass atrocities involved everything from early warning to state capacity building. I am very grateful to Mike Lawrence and Max Kelly for inviting me to that conference and forcing me to think about – and learn about – the Responsibility to Prevent. The Toronto conference also gave me an invaluable opportunity to learn more about R2P from Gareth Evans and to discuss some of the most vexing problems with him. Gareth has since helped me to clarify my thoughts on the R2P and encouraged me to deepen my engagement with both the study and the practice of protection. His vision, commitment and wisdom are inspiring. As Lee Feinstein once put it, there would be no R2P without Gareth Evans. Despite his unbelievably intense workload, Gareth took the time to answer questions, set me straight and provide encouragement. When a few of us here began thinking about making a practical contribution to the furtherance of R2P, Gareth was an eager and active supporter and adviser, galvanising us into creating the Asia–Pacific Centre for the R2P. I am deeply grateful.

I was the fortunate recipient of advice, information and comments from many people who have been actively involved in creating, selling and operationalising the R2P. Their knowledge and insightfulness was humbling. Thomas Weiss in particular has been a rock throughout the writing of this book. He provided me with drafts of the ICISS report and with insightful and detailed answers to myriad questions; he also read, and offered incisive comments on, the first draft of this book. His influence can be seen on every page of it. Joanna Wenschler provided invaluable help and useful documents on the Security Council’s deliberations about the protection of civilians. John Dauth, Australia’s High Commissioner to New Zealand and former Permanent Representative to the UN, was extraordinarily generous in answering questions and follow-ups and in providing advice which helped to shape my interpretation of events and encouragement to take up and develop my interest in the R2P. Likewise, Allan Rock, Canada’s former Permanent Representative to the UN, took the time to give detailed answers to my questions. Nicole Deller provided much assistance on the effort to engage civil society with the R2P and, deliberately or not, guided me towards the position I have ended up taking on the responsibility to prevent – a position quite at odds with the views I used to have before talking to her. Edward Luck travelled all the way to Bangkok to help us launch our Asia–Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect; set out a clear and compelling vision for advancing the R2P; and was generous in answering questions and offering wise advice. Lloyd Axworthy, with whom the ICISS began, also came to Bangkok and took the time to impart advice on how to progress with the R2P agenda. Finally, Don Hubert shared his deep insight on R2P and offered wise advice during our panel at the International Studies Association Conference in San Francisco (2008) and later, over lunch. Between them, these people have not only profoundly shaped the way I think about R2P, they have also provided proof that there exists a constituency of determined, gifted and energetic people who have worked hard to get the R2P where it is today.

I have also benefited from the insights and advice of many academic colleagues. First is Paul Williams. Over the past decade I have had the honour of working with Paul on a number of projects relating to security, peacekeeping and R2P. I’ve said this before but it is worth saying it again – Paul is a brilliant scholar and a treasured friend. His handiwork and his ideas litter the pages of this book. Nicholas Wheeler has been a constant guide and an able advisor on every aspect of this project. It was his writings that first made me interested in all things related to the United Nations and framed the way I see the world. Working as a research assistant on his book Saving Strangers was a seminal experience and I have learned an awful lot from Nick – or at least I hope I have. Ramesh Thakur provided comments and advice on an earlier paper relating to this and other projects linked to R2P. He has offered guidance and support along the way and has played an absolutely pivotal part in the formation of the Asia–Pacific Centre, of which he is a patron. Luke Glanville, Richard Devetak and Hidemi Suganami shared with me their insights on the history of sovereignty and its relationship to human rights, an experience which has helped to shape my own thoughts. I am also grateful to all those who have shared their ideas with me and have lent their support to the establishment of the Asia–Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and its new journal, Global Responsibility to Protect. Apart from those already mentioned, these include (but are not limited to) Alistair Gee, Julia Roy, Brendan Ross, Andrew Hewett, Michael Smith, John Dowd, Amitav Acharya, Pranee Thiparat, Rizal Sukma, Noel Morada, Mely Cabellero-Antony, Shin-wha Lee, Vitit Muntarbhorn, Kyudok Hong, Paul Evans, Colin Keating, Muhadi Sugiono, Pang Zhongying, Yin He, Michael Barnett, Roberta Cohen, Kwasei Anning, Victoria Holt, Don Hubert, Michael Ignatieff, William Maley, Jennifer Welsh, Hugo Slim, Pierre Schorri, Adekeye Adebajo and Eli Stamnes.

As ever, Polity Press has been a pleasure to work with. Thanks to Louise Knight, and especially to Emma Hutchinson, who guided this book from conception to completion. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Manuela Tecusan, who did a brilliant job of translating the original draft into a much better text.

Next, I owe a debt of gratitude to my family. My brothers and sisters-inlaw are the best siblings that an (often) desk-bound and over-opinionated brother-in-law could ask for. Alan and Marie are the best parents that a sonin-law could ask for – ever ready to lend a hand and to offer quiet, steadfast support, without concern for themselves. Polly – beautiful soul – has been through so much in such a short life. Her steely determination is a source of wonder; her love of life, a joy to behold; her perpetual yearning for food, a lesson in focusing.

Parts of the overall argument were field-tested at Macquarie University, Sydney, the Australian National University, Canberra and elsewhere. The whole book has been field-tested on my graduate students, some of whom have provided feedback and advice and are playing an important role in developing and advancing R2P. I’m especially grateful to Bryn Hughes, Matthew Bright, Sarah Teitt, Stephen Mcloughlin, Charlie Hunt, Jess Gifkins and Kimberley Nackers in this regard.

Finally and most importantly, I owe a massive debt of gratitude to my dear wife, friend and colleague, Sara. Sara is a brilliant scholar and guide and she has walked with me through every part of this book. She has read and discussed the whole book more than once, offering detailed comments on the first draft of the whole manuscript and forcing me to rethink many of my earlier ideas. In what little spare time she has, Sara has also played a huge role in advancing the R2P. She came up with the idea of establishing a journal, Global Responsibility to Protect, and then single-handedly went about piecing together an editorial board comprising most of the key figures and prominent scholars who engaged in R2P. And, as if that wasn’t enough, she persuaded many of them to contribute articles for the first issues. She is my best friend, my inspiration and my light. She is a constant reminder that there is so much in the world that is good and ought to be protected. This book is dedicated to Sara.

AJB

Brisbane, May 2008

Abbreviations

ADF

Allied Democratic Forces

ASF

African Standby Force (AU)

AU

African Union

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency (US)

CIS

Commonwealth of Independent States

DPA

Department of Political Affairs (UN)

DPKO

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UN)

DRC

Democratic Republic of Congo

ECOWAS

Economic Community of West African States

ECOSOC

United Nations Economic and Social Council

EISAS

Information and Strategic Analysis Secretariat for the Executive Committee for Peace and Security (proposed)

EU

European Union

EUFOR RD

European Union Reserve Deployment (DRC)

FAO

Food and Agricultural Organization

FDLR

Democratic Forces for Liberation of the Congo

FEWS

Famine Early Warning System

G8

Group of 8

G77

Group of 77

HEWS

Humanitarian Early Warning System

HLM

High-Level Mission of the United Nations Human Rights Council

HLP

United Nations High-Level Panel

HRC

United Nations Human Rights Council

ICC

International Criminal Court

ICG

International Crisis Group

ICISS

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

ICTR

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY

International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia

IDP

Internally Displaced Person

IGAD

Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IICK

Independent International Commission on Kosovo

ILC

International Law Commission

IMF

International Monetary Fund

IMTF

Integrated Mission Task Force

IOM

International Organization for Migration

ISHR

International Service for Human Rights

JIU

Joint Inspection Unit (UN)

KFOR

Kosovo Force (NATO Mission in Kosovo)

KLA

Kosovo Liberation Army

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

MONUC

United Nations Mission in Congo

NAM

Non-Aligned Movement

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organizations

OAU

Organization of African Unity

OCHA

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)

OIC

Organization of Islamic Conferences

ORCI

Office for Research and Collection of Information (UN)

OSCE

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

P5

Permanent Five Members of the UN Security Council

PBF

Peacebuilding Fund (UN)

PBC

United Nations Peacebuilding Commission

PBSO

Peacebuilding Support Office (UN)

RUF

Revolutionary United Front

R2P

Responsibility to Protect

R2P–CS

Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society

SADC

South African Development Community

SPITS

Stockholm Process on the Implementation of Targeted Sanctions

UN

United Nations

UNAMID

United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur

UNAMIR

United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

UNEPS

United Nations Emergency Peace Service (proposed)

UNHCR

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNIOSIL

United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone

UNITA

Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNMIK

United Nations Mission in Kosovo

UNMIL

United Nations Mission in Liberia

UNMIS

United Nations Mission in Sudan

UNOCI

United Nations Mission in Côte D’Ivoire

UNPREDEP

United Nations Preventive Deployment in Macedonia

UNPROFOR

United Nations Protection Force

UNSC

United Nations Security Council

UNTAET

United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor

UNTAC

United Nations Transitional Administration in Cambodia

UNTAG

United Nations Transitional Administration in Namibia

UPC

Union of Congolese Patriots

VIP

Very Important Person

WACSOF

West African Civil Society Forum

WFM–IGP

World Federalist Movement–Institute for Global Policy

WFP

World Food Program

WMD

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

Genocide and mass atrocities remain an all too frequently recurring phenomenon. In 1994, 800,000 Rwandans were butchered by Interehamwe militia and their supporters in just 100 days – a faster rate of killing than the Holocaust experienced. Elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, the 1990s delivered a bloody cocktail of state collapse and warlordism which killed more than five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, Burundi and West Africa. In Asia, Indonesia’s rule over East Timor came to an end in 1999, amidst an orgy of violence that left thousands dead. Nor was Europe spared. The wars of Yugoslav dissolution killed a quarter of a million people and gave the world a new phrase: ‘ethnic cleansing’. In 1995, 7,500 men and boys were taken by Bosnian Serb forces from the town of Srebrenica, a UN-protected ‘safe area’, and killed. An act of genocide in the centre of Europe, fifty years after the end of the Holocaust. Thanks to concerted efforts by the UN, regional organisations, non-governmental organisations and internationalist-minded states, there are fewer wars and genocides today than there were ten years ago, but those who think that these tragedies are a thing of the past need only look to Darfur to see the durability of humankind’s capacity for acts of shocking inhumanity.1 There the government of Sudan and Arab militia groups collectively known as Janjaweed reacted to a rebellion over grazing rights and local autonomy by unleashing a reign of terror which killed 250,000 and forced more than two million to flee. The fighting has since then extended into neighbouring Chad and into the Central African Republic, spreading death and displacement.

All too frequently the world’s response to genocide and mass atrocities is slow, timid and disjointed. Just as often it seems that political leaders are confronted with a choice between standing aside and sending in the Marines to wage war on the perpetrators of serious wrongs.2 Sometimes, as in the case of Rwanda, the world’s most powerful states simply lack the political will to step in and put an end to the bloodshed. Placing their own interests ahead of those of the victims, they stand aside in the face of conscience-shocking violence. In other cases, for instance Kosovo in 1999, collective action is blocked by political deadlock between states who are keen to intervene and those who oppose intervention on political, legal or other grounds.3 More frequent in recent times than either of these two responses is one of a third type, whereby world leaders declare an interest in ending mass killing but find it difficult to muster anything better than tepid political responses and weakly mandated and equipped peace operations. In these cases, made evident in the world’s slow response to the bloodshed in the DRC and Sudan, a combination of lack of will and political division produces slow, incoherent and under-resourced responses, which leave civilians facing enduring vulnerability.

The starting point for this book is the conviction that more needs to be done to protect civilians from genocide and mass atrocities. The very fact that the incidence of war and genocide has declined and that much of this decline can be ascribed to international activism suggests that this cause is far from being a hopeless one. Instead, it suggests that new knowledge about measures to prevent and stem the tide of genocide and mass atrocities can be developed, disseminated and translated into timely and effective political action. The single most important recent development in this regard was the creation, adoption and emerging operationalisation of a new international principle: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The adoption of the R2P was one of the few real achievements of the 2005 World Summit hosted by the UN. World leaders unanimously declared that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that they stood ‘prepared’ to take collective action in cases where national authorities ‘are manifestly failing to protect their populations’ from these four crimes. In April 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed the R2P and indicated its readiness to adopt appropriate measures where necessary (Resolution 1674, 28 April 2006) – albeit after almost six months of hard bargaining. The intellectual and political origins of the R2P lay in the concept of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, developed by the UN Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, and by Roberta Cohen, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Amidst the controversy surrounding NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, the concept was picked up by Kofi Annan, who challenged world governments to develop a way of reconciling the principles of sovereignty and fundamental human rights in a way which could protect individuals from arbitrary killing. That challenge was taken up by the Canadian government, which created the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohammed Sahnoun, the Commission set out the case for the R2P and identified its three main components: the responsibilities to prevent, to react and to rebuild. The adoption of the R2P at the 2005 World Summit was engineered by key states such as Canada and powerful norm entrepreneurs such as Kofi Annan, who incorporated the R2P into his blueprint for UN reform, guaranteeing it a place on the world agenda at the 2005 summit.

The purpose of the present book is twofold. First of all it examines the R2P’s intellectual origins, the ICISS’ proceedings and report and the effort to persuade world leaders to adopt the concept; this is done in order to understand what R2P means, how that meaning has changed and what are the political obstacles confronting it. The second part of the book focuses on the effort to operationalise the R2P; it asks what it takes to prevent, react and rebuild more effectively and it assesses progress towards achieving these goals. The argument that gradually unfolds may be considered controversial in some quarters. Although the R2P was initially conceived – and is, still often, presented – as a way of guiding policy-makers in their deliberations about whether or not to respond to genocide and mass atrocities with non-consensual military intervention, this is not where the principle has made its biggest difference; nor is it likely to do so in the future. Ultimately, even when armed with the criteria for using force set out by the ICISS in the report which gave birth to R2P (see Chapter 2), decisions about intervention will continue to be made in an ad hoc fashion by political leaders balancing national interests, legal considerations, world opinion, perceived costs and humanitarian impulses – much as they were prior to the advent of R2P. When a crisis gets to the point where only military intervention will do, it is in the hands of a combination of Realpolitik and the strength of individual leaders’ moral commitments, and there is little that criteria can do to shape the leaders’ calculations of interests, values, costs and benefits. When it comes to dealing with decisions about the use of force in individual cases, criteria cannot deliver consensus between the great powers, nor can they, by themselves, generate the political will necessary for leaders to commit resources to the protection of civilians in foreign countries.4

Where the R2P can make a real difference is in reducing the frequency with which world leaders are confronted with the apparent choice between doing nothing and sending in the Marines. Indeed, a careful reading of the ICISS report shows that, although much of the attention and focus was given to non-consensual military intervention, the commission itself believed that the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities was the single most important element of R2P (see Chapters 2 and 4). By starting with the needs of the victims and by outlining myriad ways in which those needs might be met, the R2P points towards a system of protection involving diplomacy, judicial measures, economic measures, peace operations deployed with local consent – albeit sometimes coerced – international assistance to help build responsible sovereigns with appropriate capacity and much more besides. If the institutional and political capacity necessary to maximise the effectiveness of these measures is developed, then the frequency with which governments are forced to choose between standing aside and going to war for humanitarian purposes will be reduced. This is not to say that such cases will never arise, or that the criteria for the use of force, which formed a large part of the ICISS’ proposals on the R2P, do not provide guidance to decision-makers in these difficult cases. What I am saying is that, by reducing the frequency of all-or-nothing decisions, more civilians will be better protected from genocide and mass atrocities. That is the promise of R2P.

This position is seemingly at odds with the concerns which animated those most closely associated with the ICISS and with the concerns which have animated most of the commission’s commentators.5 We should acknowledge, however, that the commission itself certainly nodded in this direction when it identified prevention, not military intervention, as the single most important aspect of R2P. We should also recognise that the R2P endorsed by world leaders in 2005 and by the UN Security Council in 2006 did not include criteria for the use of force (see Chapters 3 and 5), but did point towards a heavy agenda of institutional reform and behavioural change geared towards preventing and mitigating genocide and mass atrocities. The understanding of R2P presented in the second part of this book, where I focus on the principle’s operationalisation, is more in keeping with international consensus about what R2P actually entails than with R2P as originally conceived by the ICISS.6

Before that, however, I need to clarify briefly the terminology we use to describe the R2P.

Concept, Principle, Norm?

R2P is invariably referred to as a concept, a principle or a norm (usually an ‘emerging norm’). Each of these terms confers a different status upon the R2P, so it is important to clarify the meanings behind these words, the reason why different actors use them and the way they will be used in this book.

R2P as concept

Most governments – supporters and critics of the R2P alike – refer to the R2P as a ‘concept’. Examples of this abound in Chapters 3 and 5 especially.7 Edward Luck, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on matters relating to R2P, also describes the R2P as a ‘concept’, arguing that there is no consensus on whether the R2P has become a norm.8 Originating from the Latin participle conceptus meaning ‘conceived’, the term ‘concept’ typically refers to an ‘abstract idea’. When governments describe R2P as a concept, therefore, they mean that it is an ‘idea’ – a thought or suggestion about a possible norm or course of action. In other words it is a proposal, a suggestion, something requiring further development, elaboration or agreement before it can be turned into shared expectations of appropriate behaviour or into a plan of action for institutional reform. If, as the Chinese government argued in 2007 (but not, importantly, in 2006 or 2008), R2P is a concept, then it is inappropriate for the Security Council or other UN bodies to make use of it in their formal declarations or resolutions, because it is merely an idea warranting further discussion and elaboration and not an agreed principle or norm in need of operationalisation.9

The principal merit of describing the R2P as a concept is that this best reflects the language used by most governments themselves. Moreover, it is important to remember that, whilst the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document was unanimously endorsed by world leaders. It reflected not a determination by the assembly itself but a blueprint for the future direction of the UN. The decisions and proposals laid out in the Outcome Document were not self-authorising or self-executing but required further decisions by the General Assembly or other relevant Councils. Nor did the Security Council Resolution 1674 change this basic fact, since it was limited to endorsing the relevant paragraphs of the Outcome Document.

There are, however, problems with describing the R2P as a ‘concept’ in the post-World Summit era. First, the World Summit Outcome Document did not refer to R2P as a concept or idea requiring further deliberation. Its wording clearly indicated that R2P exists as something more than an idea – something to which all states pledge to adhere, both in their relations with their own citizens and in their behaviour as members of international society (see Chapter 3). Second, the Outcome Document did not require further decisions by the General Assembly in relation to the basic R2P commitment. Third, as chapters 4–6 of this book attest, the R2P has been incorporated into the practice of the UN, regional organisations and individual states.

R2P as principle

Sometimes R2P is referred to as a ‘principle’. A ‘principle’ is commonly understood as a fundamental truth or proposition which serves as the basis for belief leading to action. Labelling the R2P a ‘principle’ rather than a ‘concept’ implies that it has acquired a status of shared understanding and that there is sufficient consensus to allow it to function as a foundation for action. Both the ICISS and the UN’s High-Level Panel referred to the R2P as ‘an emerging principle of customary international law’.10 References to the R2P as a principle are not always associated with international law, however, and it is worth mentioning that the legal implications of the R2P remain controversial.11

Those who believe that the 2005 World Summit set out a clear understanding of the R2P and that world leaders actually committed to it rather than merely deliberating further are likely to argue that the R2P is a principle. Important in this regard, however, are those things which are typically referred to as ‘principles’ by world governments. Since 2001, international discussions about the the R2P have been punctuated by the insistence that it does not challenge or violate the well-established international ‘principles’ of sovereignty – non-interference and territorial integrity. Indeed, Paragraph 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document pointedly identified the ‘principles’ of the UN Charter and international law as a check on the advancement of the R2P.

Clearly the distinction between R2P as a concept and R2P as a principle is important. Conceptually, it determines whether the R2P is subordinate to traditional principles of sovereignty and non-intervention or whether – as a principle in its own right – it has the effect of altering the meaning of sovereignty itself. Practically, it has the effect of determining whether R2P remains primarily in the realm of rhetoric and deliberation for the next few years (the corollary of thinking of R2P as concept) or becomes the guide to institutional reform and behavioural change envisaged by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.12

R2P as norm

Academic commentators in particular prefer to describe R2P in relation to its status as a norm. At their most basic, norms are best understood as ‘collective understandings of the proper behaviour of actors’.13 Typically, the academic debate has centred not on the question of whether the R2P is a concept or principle, but on whether it is a norm and – if so – whether it is an emergent or an embedded norm.14 But it is not only academics who have referred to R2P as a norm. The UN High-Level Panel, for instance,endorsed the ‘emerging norm that there is a responsibility to protect’ and confirmed the developing consensus that this norm was ‘exercisable by the Security Council’.15 In the same year (2004), Gareth Evans criticised the ‘poorly and inconsistently’ argued humanitarian justification for the war in Iraq, arguing that it ‘almost choked at birth what many were hoping was an emerging new norm justifying intervention on the basis of the principle of “responsibility to protect’”.16

Describing the R2P in the language of norms both helps and complicates efforts to understand it. It complicates matters because, as commonly understood, ‘norms’ do not sit comfortably along a spectrum containing ‘concepts’ and ‘principles’ . Norms comprise elements of both concept and principle, involve actual behaviour and relate to a different standard of analysis. Given this, we should see the question of whether or not R2P is a norm, and what sort of norm it might be, as parallel to, but separate from, the question of whether it is a concept or principle. To be sure, both ways of understanding the issue ask similar questions, but the language of norms brings with it a host of concepts, distinctions and methods which are not easily tacked onto the language of concepts and principles. It is precisely the specificities associated with norms, however, that make this approach useful. For the language of norms allows us to make use of theories about different types of norm, norm entrepreneurs, and the development and evolution of norms.17

For the purposes of this study, however, I will use the language of ‘concepts’ and ‘principles’ rather than that of ‘norms’ because this reflects the terms in which governments themselves refer to the R2P. For the reasons set out above, I will treat the R2P as a ‘concept’ in the period between its articulation by the ICISS and adoption at the 2005 World Summit and as a ‘principle’ thereafter, noting that aspects of the R2P were altered, amended or simply ejected during this transition. Describing the R2P as a principle after 2005 reflects the fact that governments have indeed agreed on its content and have pledged to act in accordance with it.

1

Sovereignty and Human Rights

Sovereignty Versus Human Rights

Questions about preventing, reacting to and rebuilding after man-made catastrophes tend to be framed around an enduring struggle between sovereignty and human rights. By this account, sovereignty refers to the rights that states enjoy to territorial integrity, political independence and non-intervention, whilst human rights refer to the idea that individuals ought to enjoy certain fundamental freedoms by virtue of their humanity. Where sovereign states are either unwilling or unable to protect the fundamental freedoms of their citizens, sovereignty and human rights come into conflict.

This tension is evident in the UN Charter itself.1 When it came to designing the post-war order, the horrors of the Second World War produced a contradictory response from world leaders. Three concerns pulled them in different directions. First, there was a strong impetus for the outlawing of war as an instrument of policy. Thus Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbade the threat or use of force in international politics, with only two exceptions: each state’s inherent right to self-defence (Article 51) and collective measures authorised by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII of the UN Charter). The second concern was the emergence of the idea that peoples had a right to govern themselves. This gave impetus to the process of decolonisation, which proceeded apace in the post-war era. How, though, would these new states be protected from the interference of great powers in their domestic affairs? The UN Charter’s answer to this question came in the form of a commitment to ‘mutual respect for sovereignty’, the blanket ban on force mentioned earlier, and Article 2(7) prohibiting the UN from interfering ‘in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states’.

The third concern was in large part a reaction to the Holocaust and the Second World War’s many other horrors. Evidence of the depths to which humanity could sink persuaded the UN Charter’s authors that aspirations for human rights had to be placed at the heart of the new order. But how might different conceptions of human rights be reconciled without undermining the UN’s other ambitions? The tension this problem created is evident in the preamble to the UN Charter, in which the members promise to ‘reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’, while also promising to ‘practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’. This set in train a critically important political dilemma: how should states behave in cases where maintaining faith in human rights meant refusing to be a good neighbour to genocidal and tyrannical states? Influenced by this tension, for the past sixty years debates about the relationship between sovereignty and human rights and the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention have boiled down to a single core question: should sovereignty and the basic order it brings to world politics be privileged over the rights of individuals, or should it be overridden in certain cases, so as to permit intervention for the purpose of protecting those fundamental rights?