Introduction
The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) is a concept that has its roots in the philosophy of “Human Security”. Human Security can be defined as focusing on the individual human being as the referent object of security as distinct from the nation-state. R2P and Human Security have gathered impetus in the international community both in academic and policy spheres with a view to these concepts being justifiers for humanitarian intervention.
Taking realism as the security argument that deals directly with state security, it is accepted that nation states have valid concerns in protecting their borders and populations within from external threats, be they military force or manifestations of problems stemming from disease or economic hardship. Recent events, including the Darfur Crisis, have highlighted threats to people, occurring in foreign nations to which realist political theory does not adequately offer solutions. A situation that people around the world growingly object to.
R2P seeks to address this situation by combining existing realist concerns of sovereignty, with the human security ideals of freedom of the individual from hunger disease and repression.
Key to the issue is the United Nations. The UN is an organization that has its origins as an international mediator charged to preserve peace and international security, not to protect innocents from genocide, though with the prevalence of R2P as a concept in international policy, it is now expected to do exactly that, in addition to its aforementioned role. Pressure from lobby groups representing human rights concerns has given impetus to the UN and governments world- wide to adopt a more human-centric outlook.
Using th...
... middle of paper ...
...war1.htm
Sudan-Second Civil War “Global Security.org” viewed 30 May 2010. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/sudan-civil-war2.htm
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect viewed 01 June 2010 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/2493-general-assembly-debate-on-the-responsibility-to-protect-and-informal-interactive-dialogue
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect viewed 01 June 2010 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-sri-lanka
SECRETARY-GENERAL DEFENDS, CLARIFIES ‘RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT’ AT BERLIN EVENTON ‘RESPONSIBLE SOVEREIGNTY: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR A CHANGED WORLD’
UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SG/SM/11701
VIEWED 01 JUL 2010 HTTP://WWW.UN.ORG/NEWS/PRESS/DOCS/2008/SGSM11701.DOC.HTM
The physical and mental intent to destroy another being often unveils the darkest side of human nature. In the memoir, “An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography” dedicated to the Rwandan genocide, war hero Paul Rusesabagina states: “A sad truth of human nature is that it is hard to care for people when they are abstractions, hard to care when it is not you or somebody close to you. Unless the world community can stop finding ways to dither in the face of this monstrous threat to humanity those words never again will persist in being one of the most abused phrases in the English language and one of the greatest lies of our time.” The United Nations promised never again would they allow genocide to occur after the Second World War. Unfortunately, less
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
Many still believe that all the hard times are behind them. Those people believe that since they aren’t the ones having to face those harsh times. However, evil still exists till this day, like the Genocide in Darfur. The subject about Darfur has always been a delicate one to many. However, there are still many in this society that still don’t even have the slightest clue about what is happening over in Sudan. There have been many genocides in the past, and the most well known is the Holocaust, but it’s sad to think that it still goes on till this day. Furthermore, there are still many that haven’t done much about it. Society needs to find out about what is happening in Darfur and awareness needs to be raised as well.
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Sudan, which is located in northeast Africa, is ranked number 190 based on the amount of migrants per thousand people with a total of -4.44 migrants per thousand people. For roughly 12 years (from 2001-2013), Sudan has faced many challenges that push it’s people out of the land and pull them towards other places. These factors are known as push and pull factors. Even though there are many challenges that come with immigration, the results are more rewarding than what they would have been in Sudan. After migrating out of Sudan, these Sudanese migrants also face long-term consequences because of their decision to move.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
Various schools of thought exist as to why genocide continues at this deplorable rate and what must be done in order to uphold our promise. There are those who believe it is inaction by the international community which allows for massacres and tragedies to occur - equating apathy or neutrality with complicity to evil. Although other nations may play a part in the solution to genocide, the absolute reliance on others is part of the problem. No one nation or group of nations can be given such a respo...
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that states must refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of human rights. The duty to protect requires states to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. This fulfillment means that states must take positive action to aid in the enjoyment of basic human rights. On the individual level, while we are entitled our human rights, we must also respect the human rights of others.
To sum up, it is visible that the R2P involves numerous duties and obligations, both the international community and each state. Therefore, it appears to be that those who are critical about the R2P should take into account the importance of its multifaceted points and duties and the multifaceted Syrian conflict, where there is a lack of protection of civilians despite the international community is trying to accomplish them within the Syrian conflict framework. Therefore, it might seem that R2P is not dead, in spite of the fact that the concept itself is not fulfilling all of its duties in this conflict.