The Doctrine Of The Responsibility

In this paper I will examine the United Nation Security Council attempts at intervention in Rwanda. I will point out the interventions

In order to examine the Rwandan Genocide in the context of failed international intervention, I have chosen to look at the Genocide from a Realist perspective. The Realist paradigm focuses on states and their influence in the global sphere. Realists believe that states are only driven by power and that their policies therefore reflect these desires for power. States want to secure their security and the longevity of their nation and their ideologies. Waltz portrays this paradigm quite simply by stating: “Success is the ultimate test of policy and success is defined as preserving and strengthening the state. These views reign true when examining the Rwandan Genocide, therefore I believe that the international community's lack of response to

Jack Nusan Porter, an Ukrainian American sociologist defined the term genocide as follows: “Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.” I chose to use this definition instead of the definition given by the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’ because I think this one is incomplete, as it does not include political minorities. It is true that a genocide may not be carried out by a government or its agents, but I also believe that if not by these two groups of people, it must have their help and consent or otherwise it would not happen. The aim of this essay will be to convey and contrast the two genocide cases in Rwanda and Darfur from a US Foreign Policy perspective, to see what has been done in order to help these two regions and what else should have been done by not only a country that is one of the biggest if not the biggest power from the last century, but also a country that thinks of itself as exceptional, that feels it has the moral obligation and duty of sharing and spreading democracy in the name of human rights. Foreign policies such as ‘Exceptionalism’ and ‘Isolationism’ will be examined fully, along

As breaking news is more easily communicated across the globe, the U.N. and other states led forces are more inclined to intervene more then ever before but sometimes they are faced with the problem of protecting a states sovereignty. There is a growing skepticism that is facing humanitarian intervention when a sovereign state fails to protect it’s own population. The question arises when humanitarian intervention supersedes the sovereignty of a state. Does the state remain sovereign or does it lose authority when an outside party intervenes? Respecting a states sovereignty is a high priority between the United Nations and other state led forces, but when a sovereign state fails the responsibility protect it’s own citizens there is an unclear line that confuses the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and it’s principles of military action. The United Nation’s humanitarian intervention, and the principles of its military action, has shown time after time of its failures and successes in combating or escalating wide spread violence. In this study I will weigh the pros and cons of several conflicts where humanitarian intervention was deployed and decide if humanitarian intervention was a successful or unsuccessful procedure. By focusing on what is causing these complications in enforcing humanitarian intervention within failed states will prove if this practice is just or not. But before I discuss these issues of

There were many difficulties which arose as there were many questions which occurred such as ‘who has the right to authority?’ to authorize military intervention for humanitarian purposes? (Heywood, 2011) This is usually referred to the UN security council, this emphasises on the power in which the security council holds and how much responsibility they have, to protect and maintain peace and security. Secondly, Kofi Annan tried to reconcile the tension between sovereignty and human rights, by arguing that, in a context of globalization and international cooperation’s, the state should be viewed as ‘the servant of people and vice versa’ (Annan,1999) . Changing attitudes towards the norm are reflected in the growth in the influence of such doctrines of intervention as the responsibility to protect is that there is an onus on the international community to intervene in situations, where the lives of a country’s civilian population are threatened by the actions of government (Guelke, 2012) However, this can be seen as a disadvantages towards ‘responsibility to protect’ as stated above people’s lives and safety are in the hands of governments which in some occasions cannot be good, as not all civilians agree with government verdicts. Finally, Russia is regarded as a weak rival of the west in geo-strategic terms, its capacity to project power remains very limited (Guelke, 2012). Another example includes; Iraq, they do not follow the human right law, which shows that they are in need for protection to prevent waste of supreme court time and funding. Iraq has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, due to lack of human rights, which is defining the lives of civilians within their country. It is evident that there is a significant need for the right to protect in countries such as

Human rights have been difficult to uphold in conflict situations. This is reflected in part by the fact that the power politics in the permanent members of the Security Council usually prevent the United Nation from taking a clear stance on such matters (Heywood 2014, p.322). Due to this, the world has often been seen to stand by as such horrific violations of human rights have taken place (Heywood 2014, p.322). This happened tragically in the 1994 Rwanda genocide, in which 800,000 Tutsis were killed, and in 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which about 8000 Bosnian men and boys were killed (Heywood 2014, p.322, Lenarz et al 2013, section 2). In these instances the United Nations were absent from taking forcible action, which led to a humanitarian

The current consensus in the international community understands that nations, like individuals, have basic rights, namely, the right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. When another nation violates these rights, it is considered an act of aggression. However, there certainly are situations where a violation of territorieal integrity or political sovereignty is justified, namely humanitarian intervention, “thus use of military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.” The issue of humanitarian intervention has been at the forefront of international relations discourse, particularly

The history of Humanitarian intervention is a controversial one. In March 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) justified the use of force against Yugoslavia, a country that at this time was having a number of atrocities being committed within it. This act welcomed by those that thought that the veto of the permanent five in the United Nations Security Council sometimes block necessary cases of intervention. According to Sarooshi (2001) they believe morality should trump legality where governments commit mass atrocities. Some claim NATO’s action is legal because it represents the “crystallization in state practice of a new customary law of humanitarian intervention.” (Sarooshi, 2001:12) According to a number of authors namely Bellamy, Chandler as this essay shall soon explore, was the downfall of any form of containing ‘humanitarian intervention’. The principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 and in 2006 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reaffirmed the R2P principle.

Since the end of the Cold War, there are highly debated issues in regards to Humanitarian Intervention in the field of International Relations. It has been the legal right of external states to militarily intervene into the affairs of another state, when massive violations of fundamental human rights and genocide are violated, resulting in mass loss of life. The problem that arises with Humanitarian intervention is that it conflicts with the principle of Sovereignty. Although there has been numerous Humanitarian military interventions not all of these were with the legal consent of the United Nations (UN). The Realist and Liberalist have different views in regards to the matter of the right to intervene in relation to humanitarian issues. Cases such as Rwanada, Srebrenica and Libya highlighted the need for intervention for the protection of civilians and their right to protection. This essay will investigate whether forcible humanitarian intervention into the affairs of another state ever be justified.

ensure humanitarian intervention does not become “a smokescreen for bullies” (Weiss, 2004: 142). This is precisely what the ICISS has achieved with its report Responsibility to Protect.

The responsibility to protect is an international political norm, endorsed by the United Nations. The responsibility to protect doctrine is based on three pillars that are laid out in the in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit. The first pillar reaffirms that States carry the primary responsibility for ensuring that their citizens are protected from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Secondly, the responsibility to protect doctrine places responsibility on the international community to assist other states in fulfilling their responsibility to protect their citizens. Finally, The Responsibility to Protect doctrine gives

Moreover, efficiently separating the responsibility that states owe their citizens domestically as well as the duty that states maintain under international law to protect the international community, has ensured lesser instances of human rights violations. It is only when the international community becomes so focused on domestic disputes within their own borders that genocides such as the Srebrenica and Rwanda occur. If it were not for the Dutch in the case of Srebrenica hundreds of people would have lost their lives based on theological differences between their ethnic minority and majority. The U.N. Security Council acts as an intermediary to solve situations in which the violation of the rights of individuals has become so broad that it begins to negatively affect

Compared to the Rwanda Genocide and the Humanitarian crises in Darfur, the United Nations reaction to Libya’s case was powerful and significant. For the first time all the pillars of the Responsibility to Protect were put into practice. Meaning that, if the troubled State is incapable or not disposed to protect its citizens, “the State and the

There is no clear consensus on the matter of humanitarian intervention and it is therefore prone to abuse. Nonetheless, considering all pros and cons of intervention it appears quite clear that the consequences of intervening in all cases or just in some are less threatening compared to the consequences of not intervening at all. Such consequences include undermining human rights fully since genocide and mass killing are clear violation of the fundamental human rights. Meanwhile, the main argument in favor of humanitarian intervention is the principle of “responsibility to protect” which states agreed to at the World Summit 2005. The responsibility to protect implies that states are obligated to protect their citizens from genocide, mass killing, and ethnic cleansing; meanwhile if a state did not respect this responsibility or was not able to do so than the responsibility is transferred to the international community (Bellamy, 2011, p. 487). They have to firstly use peaceful means in order to protect the citizens and if that fails that they are allowed to use proportioned measures which are necessary to restore the protection of the citizens. Humanitarian Intervention nowadays is mainly based on the principle of responsibility to protect (Case: Libya

The international community, although faced with many obstacles, can do more to improve how people are treated in situations where human rights abuses could be occurring. Abuses against human rights have occurred for a number of years, most notably against the Jews in World War Two. A modern example where both Human security and rights have been impeded upon is in the context of the ongoing Syrian conflict. War crimes are widely known to have been perpetrated by the Syrian government and the resulting violence has left millions of Syrians displaced. The international community has been alarmed at the seeming inaction of the United Nations in response to the Crisis and feel that the international community could be doing a lot more to