The end of the twentieth century brought with it a close to the era of mass human atrocities and a new understanding of how conflict worked. With the end of World War II and the solidification of state lines, no longer was conflict confined to border disputes. Increasingly so, conflicts occurred internally within the state’s own borders taking a greater toll on civilians and often escalating into violent wars. From Cambodia to Rwanda and Argentina to Bosnia, the second half of the twentieth century was riddled with genocide and the motto of “never again” continued to happen again. The twenty first century ushered in a new ideology to prevent and stop mass atrocities. With the realization that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention was in dire need of change, the United Nations General Assembly met. According to the principles of Responsibility to Protect established at the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the recent events that have unfolded throughout the past year in Syria warrant a concerted international intervention. In this paper, I will examine the role of Responsibility to Protect and intervention in Syria.
A LOOK BACK AT SYRIA:
SYRIA’S RISE TO ITS CURRENT STATE
Syria’s rise to an authoritarian regime began in November 1970 after Hafiz al-Asad ousted the current president in a military coup. He promptly worked to solidify his governmental position and power. The Ba’ath dominated cabinet nominated a 173 member legislature of which more than half (87 members) of the seats were Ba’ath occupied. Shortly thereafter, a referendum was passed in order to confer the position of president upon Hafiz al-Asad for a term of seven years. He did much in order to keep his power and limit the opposition. A legally i...
... middle of paper ...
...l Jazeera obtains secret Syria files http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/20123191073517388.html 10. World Summit Outcome Document http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/world%20summit%20outcome%20doc%202005(1).pdf 11. Implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the Secretary-General http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/implementing%20the%20rtop.pdf 12. Amnesty International Annual Report 2011 – Syria http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/syria/report-2011 13. Evans, Gareth. The Responsibility to Protect. 2008
14. UPDATE 4-Syria pressured from all sides at UN to halt violence http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/syria-un-idUSL2E8F52GV20120405 15. Syrian Assault Undermines Ceasefire Hopes http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2111336,00.html 16. Syria: The People Awake
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2012/03/20123111598441202.html
There is always that one person that stirs the pot in a situation that could have been solved rather quickly without them interfering. This is exactly what happened in Syria. The Syrian Civil War began when a peaceful protest when a group of teenagers who were writing anti-government graffiti on a wall. Syrian people called on their president who instead of making democratic reforms, acted in extreme violence against unarmed civilians. More than a quarter of a million people in Syria have been killed and over 10 million have been forced out of their homes. The Assad regime continues to suppress their citizens and they have begun using chemical bombs to kill thousands of Syrians and many even
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.”
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
The initiation of the Syrian War was heavily influenced by the (what was supposed to be a peaceful) protest. As well as the many deaths of the Syrian citizens. These conflicts helped citizens realize all the issues that were going on at the time. There were many causes for the violence that went on during the Syrian Civil War. It can be inferred that the three main aspects that fueled the violence of the Syrian War were due to foreign influence, sectarian opposition, and conflicts between opposing groups.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
BACKGROUND: In March of 2011, the unrest in Syria was just beginning, with protests g...
An attack on the Syrian state would fall within the boundaries of the international concept of the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Syria has escalated by protests in March 2011 calling for the release of all political prisoners. National security forces responded to widespread peaceful demonstrations with the use of brutal violence. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to stop attacks and allow for implementation of the reforms requested by the demonstrators. By July 2011, firsthand accounts emerged from witnesses, victims, and the media that government forces had subjected innocent civilians to detention, torture, and the use of heavy weaponry. The Syrian people were also subjected to the Shabiha, a largely armed state sponsored militia fighting with security forces. Al-Assad continually denied responsibility to these crimes and placed blame on the armed groups and terrorists for these actions.
Based on the constructivist view, the Civil War in Syria is initiated by the identity conflict between two groups which are the Assad’s regime and the rebel. Assad’s regime originates from minority Alawite, who made up 12 percent of the Syria population and also dominates most of the position in Syria government (citation). However, this identity conflict is not on religion based as the rebel’s side consists variation of group such as Sunni sect, Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other citizens. Besides, the Assad’s regimes as well consist of other society despite of the Alwite. Based on this condition, it is clearly portray that, even though a group is made up of multiple identities, they still can pursue t...
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
Introduction Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or other status. And these human rights violations are in some countries like Central African Republic, Syria, USA, Ireland, and etcetera. One example is Syria, where the people afraid live here. Therefore, article 3 of the Universal Human Rights Act is violated in Syria. This essay seeks to consider the human rights violations in Syria.
Unfortunately for the citizens of countries like Syria, the rules enforced in the international sector are set by western nations to the benefit of western nations. This is evidenced, for example, following the Washington consensus policies instituted by western nations for the developing world, “The Washington Consensus era is often considered the “lost decade” of development, with increases in acute poverty, urban migrations, environmental degradation, increased militarization” (Lecture, 10/11/16). The west may claim that it has the best interest in aiding the developing countries growth, but empirical evidence shows that western nations will support a leader that is hostile towards improvements within their borders. Humanitarian Imperialism details the shift of humanitarian assistance in favor of western interests, “The new humanitarianism involve[d] a shift in the centre of gravity of policy away from saving lives to supporting social processes and political outcomes” (Bush 313). Although the Syrian president had been abusing human rights, the democratic process, and economic opportunity, his business friendly policies kept him in good graces with the west (Leber). The push on behalf of western nations for an integrated global economy creates a vacuum of human rights, leaving developing nations wrought with domestic
A refugee is defined as an individual who has been forced to leave their country due to political or religious reasons, or due to threat of war or violence. There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, 14.4 million under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), around 2.9 million more than in 2013. The other 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). With the displacement of so many people, it is difficult to find countries willing to accept all the refugees. There are over 125 different countries that currently host refugees, and with this commitment comes the responsibility of ensuring these refugees have access to the basic requirements of life; a place to live, food to eat, and a form of employment or access to education. Currently, the largest cause of refugees is the Syrian civil war, which has displaced over 2.1 million people. As a country of relative wealth, the United States should be able to provide refuge for many refugees, as well as provide monetary support to the refugees that they are not able to receive.
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
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