The Layperson’s Globalist: R2P
Anna Bennett explains the nuts and bolts of humanitarian intervention.
The Responsibility to Protect, or ‘R2P’, is mostly self-explanatory, if you add a few words. There are two responsibilities involved: one, for a state, the responsibility to protect one’s own citizens from human rights atrocities; and two, for the international community, the responsibility to intervene when a state cannot or will not protect its population. Essentially, R2P is a mandate to prevent and respond to atrocities resulting from intra-state conflicts. Obviously, it’s not desirable that State A creates a complete military hullaballoo the minute it appears that State B is not protecting its population adequately, so there are a few ground rules.
- It’s got to be really dire. National authorities must ‘manifestly fail’ to protect their citizens in order for the international community to step in. Failing to protect your citizens means committing or failing to prevent things like genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
- Smile first, bomb if necessary. Humanitarian and diplomatic means are where it’s at. Sanctions can be used if necessary, and military force is an absolute last resort.
- The United Nations is the world’s friend. The United Nations, by way of the Security Council, gets to decide who is manifestly failing, and who’s going to fix it. The United Nations will examine each case separately and may ask for a region’s thoughts where appropriate. Collective action will be at the United Nations’ behest, rather than at the discretion of some fiendish rogue state.
Seems pretty sensible, right? Yes and no. Interfering with state sovereignty is a bit of a grey area. The Treaty of Westphalia rendered it rather less murky in 1648, by making it abundantly clear that each state had sovereignty and autonomy. This “if you don’t invade my country, I won’t invade yours” approach has become an international norm. Unilateral action against a state, as in the case of R2P, violates state sovereignty and is open to abuse. Iraq probably feels the humanitarian intervention grounds used by the United States in 2003 could have used a little more Westphalia and rather less R2P. However, there are certainly cases where failure by the international community to intervene is at best a legal prerogative and at worst an obscene moral and humanitarian catastrophe. Darfur, Somalia and Burma would all benefit greatly from the international community taking charge. Is state sovereignty really worth protecting when such atrocities are taking place?
