From ‘Never Again’ to ‘Responsibility to Protect’

In the 1990s, the world witnessed the slaughter of 800,000 people in the Rwandan genocide and the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian men in the Srebrenica region of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  In 1999, the targeted NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo – controversial due to a lack of U.N. Security Council approval – raised questions about the legality of humanitarian intervention and military force.  Today, the world watches as hundreds of Darfurians and Chadians continue to die as the ongoing crisis in the region rages on. 

In each tragedy, the world echoed its chorus of “Never Again.”  But without sufficient political will, or consensus on the guidelines of intervention, world leaders are left without a clear answer about what should have been done or how to act today in crises like Darfur.  In response to this challenge, the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was born.

Shaping the Debate

The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine began as a challenge from former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.  At the U.N. Millennium Assembly in 2000, Annan charged members of the international community to reconcile competing questions and concerns in light of the events of the 1990s:

“If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?”

 
The Canadian government took up Annan’s challenge and established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).  In December 2001, ICISS produced its report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect,” in which a dozen scholars and experts in international affairs articulated the shared responsibility of all countries to protect populations from genocide and mass atrocities.  The report outlined the R2P approach to humanitarian intervention and guidelines for military action. It also addressed questions of authority for intervention with suggestions for how to put R2P into practice.  

First and foremost, R2P argues that each state has a responsibility to protect its own population from genocide and mass atrocities.  However, if a state fails to fulfill this responsibility, R2P implies that the international community has a responsibility to act to protect innocent civilians of other states from mass murder.

Rather than defining intervention solely in military terms, state responsibility and action is envisioned in a three-part cycle: The responsibility to prevent mass atrocities from occurring; the responsibility to react once atrocities occur; and, the responsibility to rebuild in the aftermath of atrocities.  As the ICISS report states, “Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect: prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it.”  A commitment to prevention includes establishing early warning mechanisms and addressing economic and political root causes by establishing necessary legal protections and military reforms.

At the heart of the question of military intervention, the responsibility to react first includes using coercive measures short of military intervention, including diplomacy and targeted economic and military sanctions.  The report outlines six criteria for military intervention only in “extreme and exceptional cases” by defining guidelines concerning just cause, evidence, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects of success. 

Rebuilding in the aftermath of atrocities is a necessary component to ensure sustainable peace and security so that conflict and mass atrocities do not occur again.  Long-term development, justice and reconciliation mechanisms and the maintenance of peace and security are responsibilities of the entire international community, as long as local ownership of these processes occurs.

In response to the lack of political will and questions of authority, the authors of the R2P report envisioned the U.N. Security Council as the most appropriate authority to decide on implementation of the three-part responsibility to protect.  The authors suggested that when the Permanent Five Members of the Security Council consider a resolution that pertains to cases of mass atrocities and genocide that none of them would use their veto power.

A Cause for Hope

At the U.N. World Summit in 2005, more than 150 heads of state acknowledged the “responsibility to protect” civilians from crimes of mass atrocities and recognized their shared responsibility to take action.  This overwhelming support for a relatively new international norm signals a groundbreaking shift in the way countries understand their own responsibility to their populations and other people around the world.

This acknowledgement is revolutionary in the way it shifts the discourse on intervention from a “right of intervention” to a “responsibility to protect.”  Most notably, R2P turns the traditional notion of sovereignty on its head by defining sovereignty as a responsibility, not as a right to be protected at all costs.  Sovereignty is not a shield that states can hide behind, nor is it an excuse for inaction on behalf of the international community. 

This issue also broadens the definition of intervention for humanitarian purposes.  It is important that the use of military intervention be an absolute last resort and only a small portion of what is necessary to stop mass atrocities. Weighing the costs and benefits of military action is only appropriate if all other non-military coercive means have been exhausted. 

Moreover, R2P urges states to consider prevention mechanisms – actions and structures that address the root causes of genocide and war crimes – as the most important tool in ending mass atrocities.  Including the importance of prevention mechanisms and an emphasis on rebuilding after atrocities end redefines how the international community thinks about ending violence and war crimes.  A continuum of action with varying types of intervention represents an interconnected approach to stopping catastrophes such as mass murder, rape and starvation once and for all.

Our Changing World

With such a groundbreaking international norm gaining traction with policymakers, R2P has the potential to revolutionize international affairs.  More importantly, public opinion around the world reveals the significance of R2P in public support for countries to understand their growing responsibility to the world community.  

A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, released in April, reveals that a majority of the worlds’ public agrees that states must act to stop mass murder from happening around the world.  The poll shows that global public opinion places authority in the U.N. Security Council to protect civilians from mass atrocities, with considerable support for the use of force sanctioned by the U.N.  While military intervention is not the appropriate course of action in the current case of Darfur, for example, the poll reveals growing support for a collective responsibility to act in the face of crimes against humanity.  And this public recognition is not found only in the United States: 76 percent of the Chinese public and 64 percent of people in Israel also agree that the U.N. should be able to authorize the use of force to stop genocide.

Growing support for R2P is indeed a cause for hope.  As a long-term vision for how to orient national policies and perspectives on issues of mass atrocities, genocide and war crimes, R2P expresses a common humanity and commitment to collective responsibility.  The world now has the moral courage to say “Never Again” – and with R2P – the tools to follow through on its promise.