Professor Capiella and Professor Broman highlight a number of theoretical
and practical challenges to the doctrine of
R2P. These can be summarized as. The conflict between R2P and respect to national sovereignty. Whether R2P actually serves those in need, those being the victim of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and uncertainty regarding the meaning, use and implementation of R2P in practice. We will now examine these in more detail. Critics of R2P argued, the concept is essentially a Trojan horse. A vehicle that enables mostly Western states to justify an intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign states to further their own interests. As a result, critics see R2P as a doctrine that directly threatens to undermine national sovereignty and political autonomy of the weak. Critics like the recent case of Libya in 2011 where R2P was in vote with the passing a resolution, 1973 by the UN Security Council which called for the enforcement of a no-fly zone. All necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat or attack while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form. Those criticizing a military intervention in Libya argued that UN and NATO had broaden its mandate from solar protected civilians to shaping the course of politics by arranging change. As stated by the South African ambassador to the UN, R2P must be fully respected and implemented in the latter and in the spirit of its provision rather than using the mandates as a pretext for other motives including Regime Change. South Africa was not alone in its critique of the intervention in Libya it was also shared by other member states such is India, Argentina, Russia and Venezuela. Critics also argued that the R2P is hot air and has little impact and practice. The R2P proposes many guarantees in the area of protection but some say that in reality, this protection is pure retric. This is exacerbated by an inconsistent political will amongst the international community to consistently apply R2P. It is argued that states will only commit to R2P interventions when it is in their self interest to do so. There is disagreement over the meaning of R2P in relation to what circumstances it can be applied. According to the UN World Summit outcome document, there are four R2P triggers: Genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, in 2008 the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, successfully lobbied the UN to intervene in the case of Burma. As you may recall from the previous session on the right to humanitarian assistance, Cyclone Nargis ripped through Burma, and caused a massive humanitarian crisis. In light of the Burmese government refusing to grant entry to humanitarian aid agencies, Bernard Kouchner argued that this refusal was essentially a crime against humanity and thus warranted international intervention under the principles of R2P. There is disagreement regarding the use of R2P. The principle has not been consistently applied to all cases where evidence of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity have occurred. As noted in 2012 by the Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN, this bias in its application suggests that: The responsibility to protect is only intended to be applied to militarily weak countries in order to invade countries. R2P has not been used by government and diplomats in the context of other countries that have committed atrocities against their own people. The strongest example of this being the current humanitarian crisis in Syria. In 2011, civil conflict erupted in Syria between rebel fighters and President Assad's government. This brutal civil war has already caught massive humanitarian suffering. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people have died in the clashes between President Assad's government and the rebel forces. The United Nations claims that the conflict has displaced a third of the Syrian population, estimating that 5 million remain in Syria while 2 million have fled to neighboring countries. There is also evidence that chemical weapons have been used on civilians, yet there is no definitive knowledge on who is responsible although many have assigned blame to the Assad government. There is no doubt that there is massive humanitarian suffering for those caught up in the conflict. So why has R2P not been evoked by the international community? Some suggests that proceeding intervention in Libya has created suspicion regarding the practice of R2P, blunting it shine within the international community. As claimed by Remesh Tac ho, one of the original contributists to the 2001 document, the responsibility to protect, the process of exceeding the mandate in Libya has been paid by Syrians. As you will recall from earlier in this session, the mandate of the NATO led and UN backed intervention in Libya morphed from one of protection to one of regime change. The intervention directly contributed to Gaddafi's fall from power, and the subsequent regime change, as NATO used the mandate to justify arming the National Transition Council, even though the UN had imposed an arms embargo. Or was it a case of there being little in the way of political will on behalf of some powerful members of the international community to intervene. Russia, one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council may have abstained from voting a military intervention in Libya. In the case of Syria, however, they are strongly against any military intervention. Russia has already vetoed a number of security council resolutions on the matter. It is argued that Russia's stance of non-intervention in Syria may stem from their historic, political, economic, and military ties, but also their real concern for any intervention may bring about regime change and the threat in Russia's interest in the region. As this session has shown, since its creation in 2001, R2P has been widely debated. Its supporters applaud it for changing international norms from one of non-intervention to non-indifference in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity whilst its opponents cast out on inconsistent application and raise suspicion behind the motivation of such interventions. I would like to end this session with a quote which will hopefully spur on to think further about the implementation of R2P in today's world. It would be wrong to conclude that because the international community might not act everywhere, it should therefore act nowhere.
