Workshop 3.

Public International Law Alicia Cuesta Bartolomé

What is R2P?
According to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsability to Protect,
R2P, consists of a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution, even if
that means interfering in other states. It is therefore not a legal obligation. Regarding its background,
it emerged following the failing of the international community to prevent the atrocities committed in
the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda, as well as the criticized NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1998.
This challenge to avoid international crimes was taken by the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), created by the Canadian Government, which at the end of
2001 issued a report entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. This concept affirms the notion of states
having positive responsibilities for their population’s welfare, and to assist each other from the crimes
of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Therefore, the main
responsibility for the protection of its people rests first with the State itself, even though a ‘residual
responsibility’ also lies with the broader states.

In paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, Heads of State and
Government committed to their responsibility to protect their population from mass crimes and
accepted a collective responsibility to help each other to achieve this commitment. They also declared
their capacity to take action, in accordance with the UN Charter, when national authorities failed to
protect their populations. Thus, as it is stated by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect,
created in 2005, R2P is based on three main pillars that have to be met by states:
1. States have the responsibility to protect their population under their jurisdiction from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
2. The international community has the responsibility to assist individual states meeting the
responsibility to protect their population.
3. If a state fails to protect its population, then the international community must be able to take
appropriate collective action to protect in accordance with the UN Charter.
In sum, the International community has the capacity to interfere in other states so as to avoid the
occurrence of international crimes towards a population within the frontiers of any national state. But,
R2P only relates to situations where communities are suffering from the specified crimes, not to
conflicts or violent situations that do not have the threshold of these most serious crimes (Red Cross).

Find examples of the use of R2P within the UN system.

R2P has been invoked in several UN Security Council resolutions concerning the crisis in Congo,
Côte d’Ivore, Libya, Mali, Somalia, among many others. One of the most relevant examples is Libya
2011, as it was the first time the Security Council authorised an international R2P operation. The
resolution 1973 (2011) adopted by the Security Council demanded the Libyan authorities to comply
with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law to protect
civilians. Besides, it “authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting
nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the
Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970
(2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya”.
Thus, western leaders justified their intervention on the ground of stopping Gadaffi’s threats of mass
murder in Libya. In the resolution, the Council demanded the immediate establishment of a ceasefire
and an end to all attacks against civilians. One of the central arguments made in the Council to view
the intervention as an atrocity prevention, was that the situation in Libya was an ongoing threat to
international peace and security, and a humanitarian crisis that was likely to get worse without urgent
and decisive action. The resolution ended up passing even though two permanent members of the
Security Council, China and Russia, and several nonpermanent members were unconvinced of the
need to use military force1.

Regarding R2P, what are the relevant considerations for International Law?
The Red Cross states in their handbook of R2P, that R2P should be seen as an ally, not an adversary,
of sovereignty as it considers that States should recognise that trying to fulfill a responsibility to
protect is strengthening their own sovereignty. According to the UN Office on Genocide Prevention
and R2P, the Responsibility to Protect principle reinforces sovereignty by helping states to meet their
existing responsibilities. It offers strategic opportunities for the United Nations system to assist states
in preventing mass crimes, and in protecting affected populations through capacity building, early
warning and other preventive measures, rather than simply waiting to intervene if the state fails in
doing so.
Though R2P is not a legally binding framework, it is grounded in existing international law, so it can
be best understood as a reaffirmation of already existing norms providing wider support from the
international community. R2P should remain narrow and only focused on the four crimes of genocide,
war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. While its scope should be narrow, the
response should be deep and with a wide range of support measures and responses to fulfill R2P.
Despite R2P was a concept conceived by the humanitarian intervention debate, it is not humanitarian
intervention by another name, but does allow for the use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter
for the protection of populations vulnerable to the crimes mentioned before2. So, it could be said that
R2P has succeeded in changing the terms of international debates about mass atrocities from questions
about whether external actors should be engaged and how they should act if a State fails to fulfill its
responsibility (Williams, P. & Bellamy, A. 2012).

1
Williams, P. & Bellamy, A. (2012). Libya, the Responsibility to Protect and the use of military force.
Global Governance.
2
Red Cross (2011). International Humanitarian Law and the Responsibility to Protect. Red Cross.