[BLANK_AUDIO] Please watch the following short videos by Professor Kapila and Professor Broman who have their own distinct opinion on R2P. As you listen to them discuss the concept, please make a note of the key issues of concern regarding the practice of R2P. Once you've watched the videos, we will reconvene to discuss them in more detail. [BLANK_AUDIO] In 2005, the Security Council of the United Nations. Took a resolution or approved a document, the legal status is not really clear. That was called the responsibility to protect. The idea was that after the terrible experiences of the world in former Yugoslavia. And specifically, more specifically, the genocide that happened Rwanda in 1994, the idea was that the international community had something to do, I mean, that those issues had to be addressed, that committing mass crimes. Under the protection of border lines and there are the, the, the cover of sovereignty was not acceptable anymore. One could think, one could think that why, why fight the genocide in Rwanda when many massacres and other genocide, had happened before? Well, this is probably due to the new course of history, after the end of the Cold War, and the sensation of the systematic veto exercised by the big powers, I mean it became thinkable that something can and should be done to protect. Populations threatened by powers, by military forces, to be exterminated, or at least to endure mass violences. So this responsibility to protect this document, seems, to be an important moral achievement. This is not in fact my opinion I don't believe that deploying military forces in cases, in case of mass human rights violations like crimes of war, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. These are the four situations where ought to be a, can be activated, that is, where the security council can decide to send military forces, you know, to put and end to those mass crimes. .I don't think this is a good idea, because this is a way to think that military force can solve the political crisis, and that adding violence to violence can bring and end to violence, which is. The basic assumption on which this R2P document lies, it might be true in some cases. It may not be true in other cases. Anyway, the R2P's not an obligation. It is a right. It is the right which is granted to the Security Council. To impose, let's say, a humanitarian shield by force. It is quite, I mean, this initiative is quite questionable in terms that, for the reason that it sort of rehabilitates the notion of just war. And the war which is carried out, which is waged, for nice moral goals. But one can wonder if a war can achieve moral goals. This is not my opinion, I think that war achieves negatives things and not positive things, though they might have exceptions, but what we have to bear in mind. Is that the security council can decide to activate chapter seven, the so-called chapter seven which is the right to exercise force to bridge sovereignty when peace and international security are at threat. And for instance, in early, in the early 90s at the time of the first Gulf war. When there was a massive exodus of the Kurds, the Kurdish people across the Turkish and the Iranian border, chapter seven was activated in order to organize relief and orderly repatriation of those refugees back to Kurdistan and international military protection. So the tools already exist. They are in the hands of the permanent members of the security council. So if there is a need to exercise force to protect civilians to secure an area and to shield the people who live there. Well, some tools can be already used for this. So the responsibility to protect, pursues in fact another goal, which is the rehabilitation of so called just wars. And this is the reason why I I rather object to these notion. >> Non-legal norms have become part-legal codes. So in that respect, the right to humanitarian assistance is becoming more and more solidified in legal terms. Associated with this is the norm of the responsibility to protect or R2P. This grew out of our experiences of Darfur a decade ago in 2003 to 2004. When the first genocide of the 21st century took place in Sedan, the world was unable to do anything about it. And so the General Assembly of the United Nations launched the process where by, one could think about whether or not there was a right to intervene, in situations, where massive abuse was taking place. And the government, was unwilling or unable, to do anything about protecting its own civilians. And, under this responsibility to protect doctrine. The General Assembly has endorsed principle that the world, can intervene, in countries, where the national authorities are incapable of protecting their own citizens. Of course, this raises all sorts of very, very difficult issues. And national sovereignty is the principle obstacle to operationalizing the R2P norm into, into practice. Because, even with the R2P norm approved by General Assembly, it needs the consent, of a sovereign nation for it to be put into effect, and that's where the debate currently currently stands. This debate comes into focus when we confront situations such as Syria. Where terrible abuses are taking place, and where there are many people calling for military intervention to protect the millions of civilians that have been effected by chemical warfare by fighting which has gone on for a long period of time. But the responsibility to protect also says that any such intervention must be proportionate according to what the problem is on the ground. And at the very least, it should be done in a manner that leaves the situation better off. Than the case before intervention. And this is unfortunately often not the case. For example with the interventions that took place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, where, after many years of conflict, it's doubtful whether the situation there is any better off than when we started before the intervention. So I think we're seeing now, another phase of debate starting, which may take us from, a mood we had in the last decade. Which is about intervention to, a new mood, which is about not intervening, and allowing the citizens of a troubled country to resolve for themselves the difficulties that they are in. This puts us in a very, difficult dilemma. Because when you see terrible things happening, when you see millions of people being murdered, tortured, raped, often by authorities of their nation, and you're watching it. Not to intervene, is obviously a very terrible thing to contemplate. I think this debate will remain for some time. There is no easy answer to this and we will see this evolve over coming years.
