Summary Of Darfur By Alex Bellamy

Alex Bellamy’s article explores the international engagement with Darfur and the international norm of “responsibility to protect.” This notion asserts that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities. If states are either unable or unwilling to do so, then the responsibility is taken up by the international community to protect the populations in danger. the article analyzes the actual reason behind the interference of the international community in the Darfur conflict in Sudan. Bellamy questions the world's engagement in the crisis of Darfur. The major discussion in the article centers on the distinction between the responsibility of the international community to protect Darfur and the tendency to play

The “Trojan Horse” exists in humanitarian intervention as it is mixed with considerations of national interest, such as state influence, national power, prestige and access to potential oil supplies. For example, in Syria and Sri Lanka, the responsibility to protect norm has not done very little to protect populations within states. The author notes that the international community's feeble responsibility on the Darfur’s crisis has failed to recognize the role of the “responsibility to protect.” The West’s disinclination to intervene in Darfur raises skepticism about the West’s humanitarian intervention techniques, especially after the invasion of Iraq and western strategic interests in Sudan. Nevertheless, the notion of the responsibility to protect is important in the protection of human rights as it seeks to confront atrocity committed by states through prevention, protection or

A discrepancy exists given that although this is regarded as unlawful, the use of veto power exempts them from being held accountable. Western states hold these actions to be morally legitimate, however, it violates their state sovereignty. This is evident in the case of the United States invasion of Iraq and Syria. Consequently, Bellamy acknowledges that the responsibility to protect has been abused. Adam Branch discusses American perspective of morality over International law using the events of Kosovo. The military intervention was deemed to be morally justified by the American government, while other states believe it violated state sovereignty. It seems as a Western cultural arrogance to engage in humanitarian intervention as there always has been this notion of ‘white’s man burden.’ Branch argues that at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War marked the beginning of two important trends that were to define UN military intervention. First, the “legitimacy of military intervention through moral claims were privileged” and second, the role of the Security Council (104). Branch notes the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect has no legal standing and does not hold states accountable. I agree with Branch’s overall argument that the responsibility to protect is limited by existing