The Responsibility to Protect

ICISS report 2001; endorsed at the UN World Summit, 2005

International relations — sovereignty as a responsibility

The doctrine, agreed by world leaders at the United Nations World Summit of 2005, that a state's sovereignty carries a responsibility to protect its own population from four crimes — genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity — and that if it manifestly fails to do so the international community must act, through the Security Council, up to and including force. It grew out of the failures over Rwanda and Srebrenica and the disputed NATO action over Kosovo, and was set out in 2001 by a Canadian-sponsored commission co-chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun. It was invoked to authorise military action for the first time over Libya in 2011 — after which the political consensus behind it largely broke down.

How to spot them

▸Paragraphs 138 and 139 of a 2005 UN summit outcome document
▸Four crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
▸Three pillars — the state's duty, international assistance, and timely and decisive collective response
▸A Canadian-sponsored commission of 2001 co-chaired by an Australian and an Algerian

Key facts

A Canadian-sponsored commission reported in December 2001, co-chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun (2001)

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, set up after Kofi Annan asked when intervention was legitimate

Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the outcome document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit (2005)

General Assembly Resolution 60/1 — the moment the doctrine was formally adopted by heads of state

Genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity — and nothing else (2005)

The 2005 summit narrowed the 2001 commission's much broader test of 'serious harm' to these four

Three pillars, set out in a 2009 report by the Secretary-General on implementing the doctrine (2009)

Ban Ki-moon's report: the state's own duty, international assistance, and timely and decisive collective response

Security Council Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011, the first authorisation of force on this basis (2011)

Libya; a no-fly zone and 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in Benghazi

Brazil's 2011 counter-proposal that intervening powers accept a duty of care while acting (2011)

'Responsibility while Protecting', a response to the argument that the Libya mandate had been stretched into regime change

Repeated Russian and Chinese vetoes over Syria after 2011, which stalled the doctrine in practice (2011)

The backlash from Libya hardened positions in the Security Council

Key ideas

The conceptual move is to redefine sovereignty: not a shield against outside scrutiny but a responsibility owed to one's own population. Francis Deng's idea of 'sovereignty as responsibility' is the direct ancestor.
It is a political commitment, not a treaty or a rule of customary international law, and it creates no new legal authority. Coercive measures still require Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII of the Charter.
It is narrower than 'humanitarian intervention': it is confined to four specified crimes, and it puts prevention and assistance ahead of force. Supporters insist the great majority of its practice is preventive and diplomatic.
The chief criticisms are that it is selectively applied, that it can be used as cover for regime change, and that it is hostage to the veto. The chief defence is that it gave states a common vocabulary and a set of commitments they had previously refused to make at all.

Quick-fire facts

•The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was established by Canada in 2000 and reported in December 2001
•It was co-chaired by Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, and Mohamed Sahnoun of Algeria
•It responded to Kofi Annan's challenge to the General Assembly about how to answer 'another Rwanda, another Srebrenica'
•The doctrine was endorsed in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, adopted as General Assembly Resolution 60/1
•Security Council Resolution 1674 of 2006 reaffirmed those paragraphs
•It covers exactly four crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
•The three-pillar framework comes from Ban Ki-moon's 2009 report, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect
•Resolution 1973 on Libya, of 17 March 2011, was the first Security Council resolution to authorise the use of force against a functioning state on these grounds; Resolution 1975 on Côte d'Ivoire followed weeks later
•Brazil proposed a complementary concept, 'Responsibility while Protecting', in November 2011
•The doctrine is commonly abbreviated R2P

Drill it — 8 cards

1 / 8new card

Sources

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect — About the Responsibility to Protect
ICISS — The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty December 2001. Cited without URL.