Pub Date : 2020-12-08DOI: 10.1163/1875-984x-2020x001
A. Bohm, G. Brown
There has been increased focus on atrocity prevention and the preventative elements associated with Pillar ii of the Responsibility to Protect. Policymakers and academics have offered a range of short-term preventative measures available so that the international community can better fulfil its Pillar ii responsibilities. This article challenges this current R2P thinking by arguing that its short-termism insufficiently focuses on de-escalation of risk within already present cycles of violence while dealing superficially with long-term causes and the ways in which the international community is a contributing factor in underwriting systemic and structural determinants of violence which erode state resilience against mass atrocity. As an alternative, this article examines a number of ways in which key actors of the international community contribute to determinants of mass violence and further offer recommendations for how they could better discharge their long-term preventative responsibilities by first reforming their own practices.
{"title":"R2P and Prevention: The International Community and Its Role in the Determinants of Mass Atrocity","authors":"A. Bohm, G. Brown","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-2020x001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-2020x001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000There has been increased focus on atrocity prevention and the preventative elements associated with Pillar ii of the Responsibility to Protect. Policymakers and academics have offered a range of short-term preventative measures available so that the international community can better fulfil its Pillar ii responsibilities. This article challenges this current R2P thinking by arguing that its short-termism insufficiently focuses on de-escalation of risk within already present cycles of violence while dealing superficially with long-term causes and the ways in which the international community is a contributing factor in underwriting systemic and structural determinants of violence which erode state resilience against mass atrocity. As an alternative, this article examines a number of ways in which key actors of the international community contribute to determinants of mass violence and further offer recommendations for how they could better discharge their long-term preventative responsibilities by first reforming their own practices.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78101116","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 : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1163/1875-984x-2020x002
Thomas Peak
This article presents a normative account of legitimate humanitarian intervention. Presenting a pragmatic and ideologically neutral standard for intervention, it repositions humanitarian intervention within the context of its two most closely related practices: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and liberal intervention. While distinct from R2P, humanitarian intervention is not in conflict with this political commitment. A consistent application of humanitarian intervention would indeed strengthen R2P. On the other hand, this normative account also distinguishes the principle of legitimate humanitarian intervention from the problematic conflation with liberal intervention. Liberal intervention reflects the more expansive project of international social engineering and ‘liberal hegemony’ pursued by the United States and its principle allies since the end of the Cold War. By clarifying the distinction between humanitarian intervention and liberal intervention, this revised standard overcomes several obstacles emerging from their conceptual confusion. It crafts a normatively acceptable standard for intervention which can garner broad international support.
{"title":"Rescuing Humanitarian Intervention from Liberal Hegemony","authors":"Thomas Peak","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-2020x002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-2020x002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article presents a normative account of legitimate humanitarian intervention. Presenting a pragmatic and ideologically neutral standard for intervention, it repositions humanitarian intervention within the context of its two most closely related practices: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and liberal intervention. While distinct from R2P, humanitarian intervention is not in conflict with this political commitment. A consistent application of humanitarian intervention would indeed strengthen R2P. On the other hand, this normative account also distinguishes the principle of legitimate humanitarian intervention from the problematic conflation with liberal intervention. Liberal intervention reflects the more expansive project of international social engineering and ‘liberal hegemony’ pursued by the United States and its principle allies since the end of the Cold War. By clarifying the distinction between humanitarian intervention and liberal intervention, this revised standard overcomes several obstacles emerging from their conceptual confusion. It crafts a normatively acceptable standard for intervention which can garner broad international support.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74096341","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204006
Victoria K. Holt
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was embraced at the World Summit 15 years ago, before nations and civil society had built the tools, knowledge and political endurance to implement its approach. Written by a policy researcher with R2P expertise who became a US diplomat involved in these issues, this piece reflects on the experience of the Obama administration’s efforts to bring US government focus to atrocity prevention. It considers what it got right, what it missed, and options for looking forward to address R2P in the decade ahead.
{"title":"R2P at 15: Reflections of a Policymaker","authors":"Victoria K. Holt","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was embraced at the World Summit 15 years ago, before nations and civil society had built the tools, knowledge and political endurance to implement its approach. Written by a policy researcher with R2P expertise who became a US diplomat involved in these issues, this piece reflects on the experience of the Obama administration’s efforts to bring US government focus to atrocity prevention. It considers what it got right, what it missed, and options for looking forward to address R2P in the decade ahead.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"282 1","pages":"376-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76810938","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204004
Cristina G. Stefan, E. Newman
This contribution examines the European Union’s engagement with the R2P framework and showcases various examples of progress in support of R2P from the past 15 years. It also illustrates some lingering ambivalence within the EU towards the principle and the divisions which exist across the EU membership regarding some aspects of the R2P agenda, and in particular the role of military force in pursuit of human protection. With the EU currently facing a range of internal and global challenges, its ability to improve policy coherence across the broad range of programmes and activities in support of the R2P agenda, and its ability to shape norms internationally, remain uncertain.
{"title":"Europe’s Progress and the Road Ahead at R2P’s 15th Anniversary","authors":"Cristina G. Stefan, E. Newman","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This contribution examines the European Union’s engagement with the R2P framework and showcases various examples of progress in support of R2P from the past 15 years. It also illustrates some lingering ambivalence within the EU towards the principle and the divisions which exist across the EU membership regarding some aspects of the R2P agenda, and in particular the role of military force in pursuit of human protection. With the EU currently facing a range of internal and global challenges, its ability to improve policy coherence across the broad range of programmes and activities in support of the R2P agenda, and its ability to shape norms internationally, remain uncertain.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88789569","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204009
Ririn Tri Nurhayati
With the pervasive violations of human rights, including mass atrocities, which happened during the authoritarian New Order administration, the literature on human rights in Indonesia has often been highly critical of the regimes’ human rights record. Indonesia’s regime change in 1998 brought in a more optimistic outlook; successive regimes have shown a stronger commitment to respecting human rights. However, the government still faces challenges in protecting such rights, and in acknowledgement and resolving past gross human rights violations. Consequently, future mass atrocities may not be readily avoided. This study aims to explore Indonesia’s capacity for avoiding future atrocities by evaluating three relevant factors: the influence of the interest-based arguments of the central government elites, the extent to which the idea of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has spread among Indonesian governmental institutions, and the role of non-state actors. All of these factors shape Indonesia’s capacity to respond to and prevent any occurrence of mass atrocities in the future.
{"title":"Assessing Indonesia’s Capacity for Preventing Mass Atrocities","authors":"Ririn Tri Nurhayati","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000With the pervasive violations of human rights, including mass atrocities, which happened during the authoritarian New Order administration, the literature on human rights in Indonesia has often been highly critical of the regimes’ human rights record. Indonesia’s regime change in 1998 brought in a more optimistic outlook; successive regimes have shown a stronger commitment to respecting human rights. However, the government still faces challenges in protecting such rights, and in acknowledgement and resolving past gross human rights violations. Consequently, future mass atrocities may not be readily avoided. This study aims to explore Indonesia’s capacity for avoiding future atrocities by evaluating three relevant factors: the influence of the interest-based arguments of the central government elites, the extent to which the idea of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has spread among Indonesian governmental institutions, and the role of non-state actors. All of these factors shape Indonesia’s capacity to respond to and prevent any occurrence of mass atrocities in the future.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"8 1","pages":"415-439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85428099","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204007
E. Luck
This contribution by the United Nations’ first Special Adviser for the Responsibility to Protect reflects on where R2P has been and where it is going fifteen years after it was approved at the World Summit of 2005.
{"title":"The Adolescent: R2P at Fifteen","authors":"E. Luck","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This contribution by the United Nations’ first Special Adviser for the Responsibility to Protect reflects on where R2P has been and where it is going fifteen years after it was approved at the World Summit of 2005.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"666 1","pages":"381-383"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76853824","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984x-20200006
G. Evans
In this contribution the author takes stock of the extent to which R2P has both met and fallen short of the dreams of its founders since its endorsement by the 2005 World Summit. As an effective reactive counter-force to atrocity crimes already under way, R2P’s record has been disappointing. But as an institutional catalyst and preventive mechanism it has been generally successful, and as a normative force it has been, and remains, very influential.
{"title":"The Dream and the Reality","authors":"G. Evans","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-20200006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-20200006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this contribution the author takes stock of the extent to which R2P has both met and fallen short of the dreams of its founders since its endorsement by the 2005 World Summit. As an effective reactive counter-force to atrocity crimes already under way, R2P’s record has been disappointing. But as an institutional catalyst and preventive mechanism it has been generally successful, and as a normative force it has been, and remains, very influential.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87044332","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204003
Savita Pawnday, Jaclyn D. Streitfeld-Hall
In this contribution the authors reflect on the Forum topic ‘R2P 15 Years after the World Summit: Progress, Problems and Prospects’ and provide their perspective as advocates on the normative and practical progress made towards implementation of R2P. They discuss how R2P has created a greater consciousness regarding atrocity crimes within multilateral decision-making, the challenges inherent in cultivating norm champions, and how to transform R2P from a boutique foreign policy initiative into a domestic policy imperative.
{"title":"The Practitioner’s Perspective: R2P at 15","authors":"Savita Pawnday, Jaclyn D. Streitfeld-Hall","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this contribution the authors reflect on the Forum topic ‘R2P 15 Years after the World Summit: Progress, Problems and Prospects’ and provide their perspective as advocates on the normative and practical progress made towards implementation of R2P. They discuss how R2P has created a greater consciousness regarding atrocity crimes within multilateral decision-making, the challenges inherent in cultivating norm champions, and how to transform R2P from a boutique foreign policy initiative into a domestic policy imperative.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"203 1","pages":"366-368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83559483","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204008
R. Illingworth
This article examines reform to the ‘veto’ power held by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The responsibility to react to mass atrocity crimes under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) lies predominantly in the hands of the Security Council, meaning that R2P and the veto are inseparable. Veto use can obstruct the Council from meeting its R2P, reflected by the ongoing crisis in Syria, over which 16 Council draft resolutions have been vetoed to date. This article applies a transitional cosmopolitan framework to offer an informal ‘Responsible Veto Restraint’ (rvr) recommendation for veto reform. This measure provides a more effective and feasible avenue for veto reform than the recommendations of the Accountability, Coherency, and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the France-Mexico Joint initiative for veto restraint. rvr can help promote R2P action through the Security Council, offering an avenue for progress towards addressing the problem of atrocity crimes.
{"title":"Responsible Veto Restraint: a Transitional Cosmopolitan Reform Measure for the Responsibility to Protect","authors":"R. Illingworth","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204008","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines reform to the ‘veto’ power held by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The responsibility to react to mass atrocity crimes under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) lies predominantly in the hands of the Security Council, meaning that R2P and the veto are inseparable. Veto use can obstruct the Council from meeting its R2P, reflected by the ongoing crisis in Syria, over which 16 Council draft resolutions have been vetoed to date. This article applies a transitional cosmopolitan framework to offer an informal ‘Responsible Veto Restraint’ (rvr) recommendation for veto reform. This measure provides a more effective and feasible avenue for veto reform than the recommendations of the Accountability, Coherency, and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the France-Mexico Joint initiative for veto restraint. rvr can help promote R2P action through the Security Council, offering an avenue for progress towards addressing the problem of atrocity crimes.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87934525","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 : 2020-10-05DOI: 10.1163/1875-984X-01204010
Noele Crossley
‘Consistency’ has a range of meanings in the context of human protection practice. This article conceptualises consistency – a basic premise for the legitimacy of norms, both procedurally as well as substantively. First, ‘consistency’ can refer to the coherence of the human protection framework. Second, consistency can refer to the degree to which protection responses adhere to international law and conform with international norms. Third, ‘consistency’ can mean the absence of variability and unevenness in the application of norms. I argue that consistency understood as coherence facilitates protection responses in line with international law, and, second, that a coherent protection framework encourages the even and invariable application of norms of protection by assigning responsibilities to individual protection agents. However, the international human protection regime remains incoherent: it is ambiguous and it is insufficiently integrated with other regimes and across institutions.
{"title":"Conceptualising Consistency: Coherence, Principles, and the Practice of Human Protection","authors":"Noele Crossley","doi":"10.1163/1875-984X-01204010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-01204010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000‘Consistency’ has a range of meanings in the context of human protection practice. This article conceptualises consistency – a basic premise for the legitimacy of norms, both procedurally as well as substantively. First, ‘consistency’ can refer to the coherence of the human protection framework. Second, consistency can refer to the degree to which protection responses adhere to international law and conform with international norms. Third, ‘consistency’ can mean the absence of variability and unevenness in the application of norms. I argue that consistency understood as coherence facilitates protection responses in line with international law, and, second, that a coherent protection framework encourages the even and invariable application of norms of protection by assigning responsibilities to individual protection agents. However, the international human protection regime remains incoherent: it is ambiguous and it is insufficiently integrated with other regimes and across institutions.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"80 7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89565855","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：