Pub Date : 2021-05-27DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020012
Martin Mennecke
It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.
{"title":"The International Court of Justice and the Responsibility to Protect: Learning from the Case of The Gambia v. Myanmar","authors":"Martin Mennecke","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"3 1","pages":"324-348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72895691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-21DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020007
Nickey Diamond
Impunity has been a major cause of the atrocity crimes committed by the Myanmar military, and accountability is generally seen as a central component of R2P. This article traces the changes of attitudes towards R2P-related measures in Myanmar. After 2017, voices gradually emerged from within Myanmar civil society in support of R2P, influenced by international efforts to ensure accountability and documentation. However, this support mostly came from ethnic minority groups. In the broader population and political leadership, calls for R2P were met with general hostility. Since the February 2021 coup, there has been a dramatic change of attitudes towards R2P, at least within the protest movement. However, the growing calls for R2P often reflect a desire for international military intervention that is unlikely to happen. Moreover, domestic efforts to hold the military accountable are now even more unlikely. International action to push for accountability is therefore still needed.
{"title":"The Failure to Protect in Myanmar: A Reflection on National Protection of Rohingya against Mass Atrocity Crimes and Prospects for the Responsibility to Protect","authors":"Nickey Diamond","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Impunity has been a major cause of the atrocity crimes committed by the Myanmar military, and accountability is generally seen as a central component of R2P. This article traces the changes of attitudes towards R2P-related measures in Myanmar. After 2017, voices gradually emerged from within Myanmar civil society in support of R2P, influenced by international efforts to ensure accountability and documentation. However, this support mostly came from ethnic minority groups. In the broader population and political leadership, calls for R2P were met with general hostility. Since the February 2021 coup, there has been a dramatic change of attitudes towards R2P, at least within the protest movement. However, the growing calls for R2P often reflect a desire for international military intervention that is unlikely to happen. Moreover, domestic efforts to hold the military accountable are now even more unlikely. International action to push for accountability is therefore still needed.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"28 1","pages":"379-386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90931894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-22DOI: 10.1163/1875-984x-13020011
A. Bellamy
{"title":"In Memoriam: Professor Edward C. Luck (1948–2021)","authors":"A. Bellamy","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-13020011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-13020011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"412 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75755901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-06DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020008
Kate Ferguson
This article explores the British government’s recent Myanmar policy, its response to the Rohingya crisis of 2017, and the extent to which increasing scrutiny from parliament and civil society in reaction to the atrocities in Rakhine prompted clearer articulation of a national approach to atrocity prevention. The article presents five key failures and argues that a goal for those wishing to preserve and strengthen the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, and advance the goal of preventing mass atrocities, must be to break it free of the United Nations sphere and integrate the pillars into state structures.
{"title":"For the Wind Is in the Palm-Trees: The 2017 Rohingya Crisis and an Emergent UK Approach to Atrocity Prevention","authors":"Kate Ferguson","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article explores the British government’s recent Myanmar policy, its response to the Rohingya crisis of 2017, and the extent to which increasing scrutiny from parliament and civil society in reaction to the atrocities in Rakhine prompted clearer articulation of a national approach to atrocity prevention. The article presents five key failures and argues that a goal for those wishing to preserve and strengthen the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, and advance the goal of preventing mass atrocities, must be to break it free of the United Nations sphere and integrate the pillars into state structures.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"37 1","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74607548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020010
I. Simonović
This intervention discusses the reasons why the international community failed to prevent atrocity crimes against the Rohingyas in Myanmar. It draws on the author’s personal experience as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights from 2010 to 2016 and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect from 2016 to 2018. It lays out five major ingredients of the failure to prevent atrocities in Myanmar and identifies three key lessons that must be learned to avoid continued failures into the future.
{"title":"Why ‘Never Again’ and R2P Did Not Work in Myanmar","authors":"I. Simonović","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020010","url":null,"abstract":"This intervention discusses the reasons why the international community failed to prevent atrocity crimes against the Rohingyas in Myanmar. It draws on the author’s personal experience as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights from 2010 to 2016 and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect from 2016 to 2018. It lays out five major ingredients of the failure to prevent atrocities in Myanmar and identifies three key lessons that must be learned to avoid continued failures into the future.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"10 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84272550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-19DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020009
M. Pedersen
The world has failed the Rohingya. Yet, the essence of this failure is widely misunderstood. While the existing literature on the Rohingya crisis tends to blame specific agents for having failed to fulfil their obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), this article directs our attention to the structural obstacles to mass atrocity prevention in Myanmar. Given the high risk of mass atrocities against the Rohingya and low feasibility of effective protection under any of the three pillars of R2P, it concludes that it was never plausible that R2P could work in this case. The idiom of R2P ‘black holes’ is introduced to denote situations where nothing that can realistically be done within the framework of R2P is likely to be sufficient to prevent mass atrocities or protect the victims.
{"title":"The Rohingya Crisis, Myanmar, and R2P ‘Black Holes’","authors":"M. Pedersen","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The world has failed the Rohingya. Yet, the essence of this failure is widely misunderstood. While the existing literature on the Rohingya crisis tends to blame specific agents for having failed to fulfil their obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), this article directs our attention to the structural obstacles to mass atrocity prevention in Myanmar. Given the high risk of mass atrocities against the Rohingya and low feasibility of effective protection under any of the three pillars of R2P, it concludes that it was never plausible that R2P could work in this case. The idiom of R2P ‘black holes’ is introduced to denote situations where nothing that can realistically be done within the framework of R2P is likely to be sufficient to prevent mass atrocities or protect the victims.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"34 1","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86630181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-10DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020004
Claire Q. Smith, Susannah G. Williams
Following atrocities against the minority Muslim Rohingya population by the Myanmar military, several states have imposed sanctions and deployed international justice strategies against the Myanmar government. In contrast, Indonesia has used an alternative ‘quiet diplomacy’ approach, focused on aid delivery to affected communities and cooperation with Myanmar. The paper presents one of the first empirical examinations of Indonesia’s role, and considers Indonesia’s approach from a realpolitik perspective to show why Indonesia has avoided R2P measures. The paper identifies three factors that shaped Indonesia’s approach: Islamic humanitarianism, Indonesia’s own experience of managing civil–military relations during a contested democratic transition, and its continued commitment to core asean principles. The paper also contributes to wider debates by identifying some of the limitations of R2P, especially in terms of how R2P can be sidelined by national and regional diplomatic priorities, in this case manifested in the quiet diplomacy approach.
{"title":"Why Indonesia Adopted ‘Quiet Diplomacy’ over R2P in the Rohingya Crisis: The Roles of Islamic Humanitarianism, Civil–Military Relations, and asean","authors":"Claire Q. Smith, Susannah G. Williams","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Following atrocities against the minority Muslim Rohingya population by the Myanmar military, several states have imposed sanctions and deployed international justice strategies against the Myanmar government. In contrast, Indonesia has used an alternative ‘quiet diplomacy’ approach, focused on aid delivery to affected communities and cooperation with Myanmar. The paper presents one of the first empirical examinations of Indonesia’s role, and considers Indonesia’s approach from a realpolitik perspective to show why Indonesia has avoided R2P measures. The paper identifies three factors that shaped Indonesia’s approach: Islamic humanitarianism, Indonesia’s own experience of managing civil–military relations during a contested democratic transition, and its continued commitment to core asean principles. The paper also contributes to wider debates by identifying some of the limitations of R2P, especially in terms of how R2P can be sidelined by national and regional diplomatic priorities, in this case manifested in the quiet diplomacy approach.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72668588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020006
Sebastiaan Verelst
The current approach of the international community to the question of accountability for atrocity crimes in Myanmar risks doing little to prevent such crimes in the future. It fails to shape accountability measures as a response to a complex and structural impunity problem that drives the recurrence of atrocity crimes. This article discusses building blocks for an alternative approach: a deeper understanding of impunity, a multifaceted concept of accountability, a greater awareness of the purpose and limitations of distinct accountability measures, and a deliberate connection between the accountability and prevention agendas. In doing so, the article explores how states can more effectively fulfil their international legal obligation to prevent atrocity crimes, in Myanmar and beyond.
{"title":"Accountability in Myanmar: A Transformative Stepping-Stone?","authors":"Sebastiaan Verelst","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The current approach of the international community to the question of accountability for atrocity crimes in Myanmar risks doing little to prevent such crimes in the future. It fails to shape accountability measures as a response to a complex and structural impunity problem that drives the recurrence of atrocity crimes. This article discusses building blocks for an alternative approach: a deeper understanding of impunity, a multifaceted concept of accountability, a greater awareness of the purpose and limitations of distinct accountability measures, and a deliberate connection between the accountability and prevention agendas. In doing so, the article explores how states can more effectively fulfil their international legal obligation to prevent atrocity crimes, in Myanmar and beyond.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"132 1","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88933826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020002
Cecilia Jacob
The escalation of violence by Myanmar’s military forces against ethnic Rohingya populations in Rakhine State in 2017 served as a test case for Australia’s commitment to R2P, and its capacity to protect populations from widespread and systematic atrocities in its own regional neighbourhood. Australia’s response to the crisis in Myanmar was mixed; it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar that was instrumental in determining the extent and nature of violence committed by Myanmar’s armed forces during the so-called ‘clearance operations’, and provided substantial humanitarian aid for affected Rohingya populations. Australia has, however, been criticised for not doing enough to pressure the government of Myanmar on the issue, for maintaining defence cooperation with Myanmar throughout the crisis, and for its reluctance to accept Rohingya refugees fleeing the violence. This article examines Australia’s response to the Rohingya crisis in the areas of international, regional, and bilateral diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and defence cooperation. It asks why Australia did not take a more proactive role in confronting atrocities committed by the Myanmar government, and identifies lessons learnt and recommendations for strengthening Australia’s atrocity prevention architecture that is consistent with Australia’s pragmatic approach to regional assistance and its principled international advocacy.
{"title":"Navigating between Pragmatism and Principle: Australia’s Foreign Policy Response to the 2017 Rohingya Crisis","authors":"Cecilia Jacob","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The escalation of violence by Myanmar’s military forces against ethnic Rohingya populations in Rakhine State in 2017 served as a test case for Australia’s commitment to R2P, and its capacity to protect populations from widespread and systematic atrocities in its own regional neighbourhood. Australia’s response to the crisis in Myanmar was mixed; it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar that was instrumental in determining the extent and nature of violence committed by Myanmar’s armed forces during the so-called ‘clearance operations’, and provided substantial humanitarian aid for affected Rohingya populations. Australia has, however, been criticised for not doing enough to pressure the government of Myanmar on the issue, for maintaining defence cooperation with Myanmar throughout the crisis, and for its reluctance to accept Rohingya refugees fleeing the violence. This article examines Australia’s response to the Rohingya crisis in the areas of international, regional, and bilateral diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and defence cooperation. It asks why Australia did not take a more proactive role in confronting atrocities committed by the Myanmar government, and identifies lessons learnt and recommendations for strengthening Australia’s atrocity prevention architecture that is consistent with Australia’s pragmatic approach to regional assistance and its principled international advocacy.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89868768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-13020001
C. Buzzi
Liberalisation of the telecommunications sector is a significant part of the political changes that were initiated in 2011 in Myanmar, making smartphones, sim cards, and access to the internet more widely available. Social media (SoMe) platforms, notably Facebook, have emerged as the main access to the internet for many people. But as the transition has proceeded, SoMe has become a space both for human rights activism and for inciting human rights abuses against vulnerable minorities. It is well documented that both the state and civil society in Myanmar have used Facebook to foment violence and mass atrocities against the Rohingya and other vulnerable minorities. This article examines some challenges for internet and SoMe governance drawing on the response of Facebook and various internet service providers in Myanmar in order to explore how to apply the norm of R2P on the net. The article aims to provide input for lessons learnt on mass atrocity prevention in a digital age.
{"title":"Mass Atrocities in Myanmar and the Responsibility to Protect in a Digital Age","authors":"C. Buzzi","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-13020001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Liberalisation of the telecommunications sector is a significant part of the political changes that were initiated in 2011 in Myanmar, making smartphones, sim cards, and access to the internet more widely available. Social media (SoMe) platforms, notably Facebook, have emerged as the main access to the internet for many people. But as the transition has proceeded, SoMe has become a space both for human rights activism and for inciting human rights abuses against vulnerable minorities. It is well documented that both the state and civil society in Myanmar have used Facebook to foment violence and mass atrocities against the Rohingya and other vulnerable minorities. This article examines some challenges for internet and SoMe governance drawing on the response of Facebook and various internet service providers in Myanmar in order to explore how to apply the norm of R2P on the net. The article aims to provide input for lessons learnt on mass atrocity prevention in a digital age.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"16 1","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77292765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：