Churchill spoke for 45 minutes to criticise the government for signing the agreement and, in general, for its policy of appeasement.
The speech officially ended Churchill's support for the government's
appeasement policy. Churchill had hoped for a reasonable settlement of
the Sudetenland issue, but he was adamant that Britain must fight for
the continued independence of Czechoslovakia. Among his criticisms of
the government, Churchill said that the Soviet Union should have been invited to take part in the negotiations with Hitler.
Although it was one of Churchill's most famous speeches, the Commons voted 366 to 144 in support of a motion
in favour of the government's signing of the agreement. Despite their
stated opposition to the agreement, Churchill and his Conservative Party
supporters chose to abstain, and did not vote against the motion.
Background
Churchill in 1938
In 1938, Winston Churchill was a backbench MP who had been out of government office since 1929. He was the Conservative member for Epping.
From the mid-1930s, alarmed by developments in Germany, he had
consistently emphasised the necessity of rearmament and the buildup of
national defences, especially the Royal Air Force. Churchill strongly opposed the appeasement of Hitler, a policy by which the British government, led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, hoped to maintain peace in Europe.
Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland
The First Czechoslovak Republic was created in 1918 as an amalgam of territories that had belonged to Austria-Hungary.
Among its citizens were three million ethnic Germans, accounting for
22.95% of the total population. Most Germans lived in the Sudetenland, a region that bordered Germany and Austria. Sudetenland was the most industrialised area of Czechoslovakia and
relied heavily on exports for regional prosperity. The economy of the
region was badly hit by the Great Depression after the Wall Street crash of 1929. Unemployment escalated, especially among Sudeten Germans, and in 1933, inspired by Hitler's rise to power in Germany, Konrad Henlein founded the Sudeten German Party (SdP), which publicly asked for regional autonomy but secretly sought the union of Sudetenland with Germany.
Soon after the Anschluß, Germany's annexation of Austria in March 1938, Henlein met Hitler in Berlin and was instructed to present the so-called Karlsbader Programm to the Czechoslovak government, led by President Edvard Beneš.
The document amounted to a series of demands that Czechoslovakia could
not accept, principally autonomy for all Germans living in the country. Hitler and Goebbels
launched a propaganda campaign in support of the SdP. As Hitler had
intended, tensions rose until by September, the outbreak of war seemed
immininent.
Czechoslovakia needed the support of other European powers, especially Britain and France. Writing in the Evening Standard
on 18 March, Churchill called upon Chamberlain to declare with France
that both countries would aid Czechoslovakia if it was subject to an
unprovoked attack.
Chamberlain, however, had other ideas. He sympathised with the
Sudeten Germans and, commenting on the French declaration, believed some
arrangement should be made that "would prove more acceptable to
Germany".
Escalation of crisis
Germany mobilised on 2 September, and the crisis came to a head on the 12th, when Hitler made a speech at Nuremberg
in which he condemned the Czechoslovak government and accused it of
atrocities and of denying rights of self-determination to the Sudeten
Germans. On the 13th, Chamberlain decided to act and requested a meeting with
Hitler to try to avert the possibility of war. Chamberlain met Hitler at
Berchtesgaden
on the 15th, but there was no conclusion. However, Hitler demanded for
the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany but claimed that he had no
designs on the remainder of Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain met French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier
in London next day. They agreed that Czechoslovakia should cede to
Germany all territories in which over 50% of the population were ethnic
Germans. In exchange, Britain and France would guarantee the
independence of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovaks rejected the proposal and the same day issued a warrant for Henlein's arrest.
Chamberlain met Hitler again from 22 to 24 September in Bad Godesberg.
Hitler increased his demands, but Chamberlain objected. Hitler stated
that Germany would occupy the Sudetenland on 1 October, but that had
been planned as early as May, when Fall Grün was drafted. The French and the Czechoslovaks rejected Hitler's demands at Bad Godesberg.
Chamberlain, now anticipating the outbreak of war, said on 27
September 1938 in a radio address to the British people, "How incredible
it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here
because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we
know nothing".
Munich Conference
On
28 September, Chamberlain sent a further appeal to Hitler and began a
speech in the British House of Commons to try to explain the seriousness
of the crisis. During his speech, he was handed a message from Hitler
that invited him to Munich with Daladier and Mussolini. On the 29th, Mussolini officially proposed what became the Munich Agreement.
The Czechoslovak representatives were excluded from the conference on
Hitler's insistence and had to rely on Chamberlain and Daladier for
information. The four leaders reached agreement on the 29th and signed
the treaty at 01:30 the next day. Czechoslovakia reluctantly accepted
the agreement as a fait accompli. It ceded the Sudetenland to Germany on 10 October, and Hitler agreed to take no action against the rest of the country.
Later that day, Hitler met Chamberlain privately. They signed the
Anglo-German Agreement, which included a statement that both nations
considered the Munich Agreement was "symbolic of the desire of our two
peoples never to go to war again". Hitler afterwards dismissed the paper as insignificant, but Chamberlain made political capital out of it, returned to England and declared that it was "peace for our time".
"Lost the courage"
A debate on Munich began in the British House of Commons on 3 October. That day, a Conservative minister, Duff Cooper resigned in protest from his post as First Lord of the Admiralty.
In his resignation speech on 3 October, Cooper said that Britain had
"lost the courage to see things as they are" and that the country had
been "drifting, day by day, nearer into war with Germany, and we have
never said, until the last moment, and then in most uncertain terms,
that we were prepared to fight".
The flowers piled before 10,
Downing Street are very fitting for the funeral of British honour and,
it may be, of the British Empire. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s love
of peace. I know the horrors of war – a great deal better than he can.
But when he returns from saving our skins from a blackmailer at the
price of other people’s flesh, and waves a piece of paper with Herr
Hitler’s name on it, if it were not ghastly, it would be grotesque. No
doubt he has never read Mein Kampf in German. But to forget, so utterly, the Reichstag fire, and the occupation of the Rhineland, and 30 June 1934 (the Night of the Long Knives), and the fall of Austria!
We have lost the courage to see things as they are. And yet Herr Hitler
has kindly put down for us in black and white that programme he is so
faithfully carrying out.
Simon's motion
When the debate recommenced on 5 October, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon
raised a motion: "That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's
Government by which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports
their efforts to secure a lasting peace". A vote in favour of the motion would confirm the Commons' approval of the Munich Agreement, which ceded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany. In broader terms, support for Simon's motion would signal approval of
the government's policy of appeasement in its dealings with Hitler.
After Simon's opening address, the Labour Party's deputy leader, Arthur Greenwood, replied for the Opposition.
He pointed out that "the eleventh-hour concessions made at Munich went
far beyond the Anglo-French Memorandum and represented a further retreat
by Britain and France from the admittedly outrageous demands already
made upon Czechoslovakia". Greenwood challenged the right of the
"Four-Power Pact", which operated at Munich, to make binding decisions
on world affairs within which, he reminded, the Soviet Union and the
United States were powerful factors. Greenwood completed his speech and was followed by Churchill.
Speech
Roy Jenkins stated that Churchill delivered "a speech of power and intransigence". Having shortly disclaimed any personal animosity towards Chamberlain, Churchill declared:
I will, therefore, begin by saying
the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what
everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be
stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat,
and that France has suffered even more than we have.
Having dealt with an interruption by Nancy Astor, who accused him of talking "nonsense", Churchill focused on Chamberlain and said:
The utmost he has been able to gain
for Czechoslovakia and in the matters which were in dispute has been
that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the
table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.
He summarized the positions reached at Berchtesgaden, Bad Godesberg and Munich metaphorically:
£1 was demanded at the pistol's
point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol's point.
Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d and the rest in
promises of goodwill for the future.
Churchill then argued that the Czechoslovak government, left to
itself and knowing that it would get no help from the Western Powers,
would have made better terms. Later in the speech, Churchill predicted accurately that the rest of Czechoslovakia would be "engulfed in the Nazi regime". He went on to say that in his view, "the maintenance of peace depends
upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a
sincere effort to redress grievances". He argued that that course had not been taken because Britain and
France did not involve "other powers", which could have guaranteed the
security of Czechoslovakia while the Sudetenland issue was being
examined by an international body. The other power that he had in mind
was the Soviet Union, and Churchill soon remonstrated that close contact
with it should have been made during the summer months, while the
crisis unfolded. Churchill maintained that Hitler would not have
followed his course if the Soviets had been involved in the summit
meetings.
Churchill indicted the British government for the neglect of its
responsibilities in the past five years since Hitler had come to power:
"Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". He compared the Chamberlain regime with the court of Ethelred the Unready and reminded how England, having held a position of real strength under Alfred the Great, later "fell very swiftly into chaos".
Churchill concluded with a dire warning that foreshadowed the outbreak of the Second World War eleven months later:
And do not suppose that this is the
end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the
first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered
to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and
martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the
olden time.
Although the speech is regarded as one of Churchill's finest, it was
spoken when he was still a minority politician and, as Jenkins noted,
unable to win many friends on the Conservative benches. On 6 October, the Commons concluded the debate and voted 366 to 144 in
support of Simon's motion to approve Chamberlain's signing of the Munich
Agreement.
No Conservative Party member voted against the motion, and even Churchill and his supporters only abstained.
Aftermath
Churchill's
speech had little immediate effect on British public opinion. He
himself faced retribution from Conservatives in his constituency and
needed a vote of confidence to retain his seat at a meeting of his
constituents on 4 November. He won with 100 votes to 44, largely thanks
to the support of Sir James Hawkey, who was the chairman of the Epping
Conservative Association.
Most people clung to the hope of a lasting peace as promised by Chamberlain. It was not until the Kristallnacht,
the anti-Jewish violence of 9–10 November 1938, that they began to
think otherwise. It became increasingly difficult for Chamberlain to
portray Hitler as a partner in peace. The British government then embarked on a programme of rearmament that was unprecedented in peacetime. The French did likewise.
On 15 March 1939, Germany and Hungary overran the rest of
Czechoslovakia, just as Churchill had predicted five months earlier. The
Slovak part of the country became nominally independent as the First Slovak Republic but was only a German puppet state. The Czech lands became a puppet state incorporated into Greater Germany as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
After Chamberlain had declared war against Germany on 3 September
1939, one of his first actions was to restore Churchill to government
office. Churchill was reappointed First Lord of the Admiralty,
the office that he held in 1914 at the beginning of the First World
War. On 10 May 1940, he succeeded Chamberlain, who had resigned as Prime
Minister.
The principle of the responsibility to protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict. The R2P has three pillars:
Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state
– "Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its
population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes
against humanity"
Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building – States pledge to assist each other in their protection responsibilities
Pillar III: Timely and decisive collective response – If any
state is "manifestly failing" in its protection responsibilities, then
states should take collective action to protect the population.
While there is agreement among states about the responsibility to
protect, there is persistent contestation about the applicability of the
third pillar in practice. The responsibility to protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians
from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under
the framework of the responsibility to protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.
The responsibility to protect has been the subject of
considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the
principle by various actors in the context of country-specific
situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan, Kenya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Palestine, for example.
Definition
The responsibility to protect was unanimously adopted by all members of the United Nations General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit and articulated in paragraphs 138–139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document:
138.
Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes,
including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We
accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The
international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help
States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in
establishing an early warning capability.
139.
The international community, through the United Nations, also has the
responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other
peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter,
to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take
collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security
Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII,
on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional
organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and
national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We
stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of
the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications,
bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We
also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to
helping States build capacity to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and
to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts
break out.
140. We fully support the mission of the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.
The above paragraphs in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document serve
as the basis for the inter-governmental agreement to the responsibility
to protect. The General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document in its resolution 60/1 of 2005. The body subsequently committed to continue consideration of the
responsibility to protect with its Resolution A/Res/63/308 of October
2009. The UN Security Council first reaffirmed the responsibility to protect
in Resolution 1674 (2006) on the protection of civilians in armed
conflict, recalling in particular paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Summit
Outcome regarding the responsibility to protect populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Scope and limitations
The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,
which first articulated the responsibility to protect in its December
2001 Report, envisioned a wide scope of application in its articulation
of the principle. This included "overwhelming natural or environmental
catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to
cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring
or threatened."
Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit refined
the scope of the responsibility to protect to the four crimes mentioned
in paragraphs 138 and 139, namely genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity, which are commonly referred to as
'atrocity crimes' or 'mass atrocity crimes'.
As per the Secretary-General's 2009 Report on the Responsibility to Protect, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,
"The responsibility to protect applies, until Member States decide
otherwise, only to the four specified crimes and violations: genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity...To try to
extend it to cover other calamities, such as HIV/AIDS, climate change or
the response to natural disasters, would undermine the 2005 consensus
and stretch the concept beyond recognition or operational utility."
The focused scope is part of what the UN Secretary-General has
termed a "narrow but deep approach" to the responsibility to protect: A
narrow application to four crimes, but a deep approach to response,
employing the wide array of prevention and protection instruments
available to Member States, the United Nations system, regional and
subregional organizations and civil society.
Three pillars
The
responsibility to protect consists of three important and
mutually-reinforcing pillars, as articulated in the 2009 Report of the
Secretary-General on the issue, and which build off paragraphs 138 and
139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and the intergovernmental
agreement to the principle:
Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state
– "Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its
population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes
against humanity"
Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building – States pledge to assist each other in their protection responsibilities
Pillar III: Timely and decisive collective response –If any
state is "manifestly failing" in its protection responsibilities, then
states should take collective action to protect the population.
While there is widespread agreement among states about the
responsibility to protect (only Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Sudan
have questioned R2P's validity), there is persistent contestation about
the applicability of the third pillar in practice.
According to the UN Secretary-General's 2012 report, the three
pillars of the responsibility to protect are not sequential and are of
equal importance. "Without all three, the concept would be incomplete.
All three pillars must be implemented in a manner fully consistent with
the purposes, principles, and provisions of the Charter." The pillared approach is intended to reinforce, not undermine state
sovereignty. As per the 2009 report of the Secretary-General, "By
helping States to meet their core protection responsibilities, the
responsibility to protect seeks to strengthen sovereignty, not weaken
it. It seeks to help States to succeed, not just to react when they
fail."
Humanitarian intervention
The responsibility to protect differs from humanitarian intervention
in four important ways. First, humanitarian intervention only refers to
the use of military force, whereas R2P is first and foremost a
preventive principle that emphasizes a range of measures to stem the
risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against
humanity before the crimes are threatened or occur. The use of force may
only be carried out as a measure of last resort, when all other
non-coercive measures have failed, and only when it is authorized by the
UN Security Council. This is in contrast to the principle of 'humanitarian intervention',
which claims to allow for the use of force as a humanitarian imperative
without the authorization of the Security Council.
The second point relates to the first. As a principle, the
responsibility to protect is rooted firmly in existing international
law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security,
human rights, and armed conflict.
Third, while humanitarian interventions have in the past been
justified in the context of varying situations, R2P focuses only on the
four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity
and ethnic cleansing. The first three crimes are clearly defined in
international law and codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
the treaty which established the International Criminal Court. Ethnic
cleansing is not a crime defined under international law, but has been
defined by the UN as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or
religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the
civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain
geographic areas".
Finally, while humanitarian intervention assumes a "right to intervene", the R2P is based on a "responsibility to protect". Humanitarian intervention and the R2P both agree on the fact that
sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from
state-centered motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not
on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect
populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of
sovereignty, moving away from issues of "control" and emphasising
"responsibility" to one's own citizens and the wider international
community.
History
1990s: Origins
The norm of the R2P was born out of the international community's failure to respond to tragedies such as the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. Kofi Annan, who was Assistant Secretary-General at the UN Department for Peacekeeping Operations during the Rwandan genocide, realized the international community's failure to respond. In the wake
of the Kosovo intervention, 1999, Annan insisted that traditional
notions of sovereignty had been redefined: "States are now widely
understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples", he said, while U.S. President Bill Clinton cited human rights concerns in 46% of the hundreds of remarks that he made justifying intervention in Kosovo. In 2000, and in his capacity as UN Secretary-General,
Annan wrote the report "We the Peoples" on the role of the United
Nations in the 21st Century, and in this report he posed the following
question: "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 offend every precept of our common
humanity?"
2000: African Union proposes a right to intervene
The African Union
(AU) claimed a responsibility to intervene in crisis situations if a
state is failing to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes. In 2000, the AU incorporated the right to intervene in a member state, as enshrined in Article 4(h) of its Constitutive Act,
which declares "[t]he right of the Union to intervene in a Member State
pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave
circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity". The AU also adopted the Ezulwini Consensus in 2005, which welcomed R2P as a tool for the prevention of mass atrocities.
2000: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
In September 2000, following an appeal by its Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, the Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
(ICISS) to answer Annan's question "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?" In February 2001, at the third round
table meeting of the ICISS in London, Gareth Evans, Mohamed Sahnoun, and Michael Ignatieff
suggested the phrase "responsibility to protect" as a way to avoid the
"right to intervene" or "obligation to intervene" doctrines and yet keep
a degree of duty to act to resolve humanitarian crises.
In 2001, ICISS released a report titled "The Responsibility to Protect"Archived 2016-01-09 at the Wayback Machine.
In a radical reformulation of the meaning of state sovereignty, the
report argued that sovereignty entailed not only rights but also
responsibilities, specifically a state's responsibility to protect its
people from major violations of human rights. This idea rested on
earlier work by Francis Deng and Roberta Cohen regarding internally displaced persons. Inspiration may also be attributed to Jan Eliasson,
who in response to a questionnaire on internally displaced persons
distributed by Francis Deng, stated that assisting populations at risk
within their own country was "basically a question of striking a balance
between sovereignty and solidarity with people in need." The ICISS report further asserted that, where a state was "unable or
unwilling" to protect its people, the responsibility should shift to the
international community and "the principle of non-intervention yields
to the international responsibility to protect." The ICISS argued that
any form of military intervention is "an exceptional and extraordinary
measure", and, as such, to be justified it must meet certain criteria,
including:
Just cause: There must be "serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur".
Right intention: The main intention of the military action must be to prevent human suffering.
Last resort: Every other measure besides military invention has to
have already been taken into account. (This does not mean that every
measure has to have been tried and been shown to fail, but that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that only military action would work
in that situation.)
Proportional means: The military means must not exceed what is necessary "to secure the defined human protection objective".
Reasonable prospects: The chance of success must be reasonably high,
and it must be unlikely that the consequences of the military
intervention would be worse than the consequences without the
intervention.
Right authority: The military action has to have been authorized by the Security Council.
2005 World Summit outcome document
As
the ICISS report was released in 2001, right around the time of the
Second Gulf War, many thought that would be the end of this new norm.
However, at the 2005 World Summit, where the largest number of heads of state and government in the history of the UN convened, the R2P was unanimously adopted. While the outcome was close to the ideas of the ICISS report, there
were some notable differences: the R2P would now only apply to mass
atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and
ethnic cleansing), rather than human rights violations; no mention was
made of the criteria of intervention (see above); and the UN Security
Council was made the only body allowed to authorize intervention. The
paragraphs also stress the importance of regional organizations and the
role they can play through Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.
The results of this summit led to world leaders agreeing on
holding each other accountable if they fail to uphold the new
responsibilities. Decidedly if one state fails to uphold their
responsibility this is now where State Sovereignty may be broken in
order to protect people in danger of such crimes. First peaceful action
is to be taken through humanitarian, diplomatic, or other means. If
these fail to resolve the matter, the international community should
come together in a “timely and decisive manner”. This shall all be
worked on a case-by-case basis through the UN Security Council as well
as the UN Charter.
Secretary-General's 2009 report
On 12 January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a report entitled Implementing the Responsibility to ProtectArchived 2014-09-12 at the Wayback Machine. The report was the first comprehensive document from the UN Secretariat
on the R2P, following Ban's stated commitment to turn the concept into
policy. The Secretary-General's report set the tone and the direction
for the discussion on the subject at the UN. The report proposes
three-pillar approach to the R2P:
Pillar One stresses that states have the primary responsibility
to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Pillar Two addresses the international community's commitment to
help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and to help
those under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Pillar Three focuses on the responsibility of international community
to act in a timely and decisive way to prevent and halt genocide,
ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when a state
manifestly fails to protect its populations.
At
the 2005 World Summit, UN member states included R2P in the Outcome
Document agreeing to Paragraphs 138 and 139 as written in its
Definition. These paragraphs gave final language to the scope of R2P. It
applies to the four mass atrocities crimes only. It also identifies to
whom the R2P protocol applies; i.e., nations first, and regional and
international communities second. Since then, the UN has been actively
engaged with the development of the R2P. Several resolutions, reports,
and debates have emerged through the UN forum.
Security Council
The Security Council has reaffirmed its commitment to the R2P in more than 80 resolutions. The first such resolution came in April 2006, when the Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 in Resolution 1674,
formalizing their support for the R2P. In 2009, the Council again
recognized states' primary responsibility to protect and reaffirmed
paragraphs 138 and 139 in resolution 1894.
Additionally, the Security Council has mentioned the R2P in several country-specific resolutions:
In January 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released UN Secretariat's first comprehensive report on the R2P, called Implementing the Responsibility to ProtectArchived 2014-09-12 at the Wayback Machine. His report led to a debate in the General Assembly in July 2009 and the
first time since 2005 that the General Assembly had come together to
discuss the R2P. Ninety-four member states spoke. Most supported the R2P
principle, although some important concerns were voiced. They discussed
how to implement the R2P in crisis situations around the world. The
debate highlighted the need for regional organizations like the African
Union to play a strong role in implementing R2P; the need for stronger
early warning mechanisms in the UN; and the need to clarify the roles UN
bodies would play in implementing R2P.
One outcome of the debate was the first resolution referencing R2P adopted by the General Assembly.
The Resolution (A/RES/63/308) showed that the international community
had not forgotten about the concept of the R2P and it decided "to
continue its consideration of the responsibility to protect".
In subsequent years, the Secretary-General would release a new report, followed by another debate in the General Assembly.
In 2010, the report was titled Early Warning, Assessment and the Responsibility to ProtectArchived 2018-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.
The informal interactive dialogue was held on 9 August 2010, with 49
member states, two regional organizations, and two civil society
organizations speaking at the event. The discussion had a resoundingly
positive tone, with virtually all of those that spoke stressing a need
to prevent atrocities and agreeing that effective early warning is a
necessary condition for effective prevention and early action.
Objections were expressed by a small number of member states; namely
Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and Venezuela.
In 2011, the report analyzed The Role of Regional and Subregional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to ProtectArchived 2018-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.
At the debate on 12 July 2011, statements were made by 43 member
states, three regional organizations, and four civil society
representatives. The biggest challenge to R2P was considered cooperation
with, and support between, the UN and regional bodies in times of
crisis. Member states acknowledged the importance of resolving this
challenge through the unique advantages regional organizations possess
in preventing and reacting to mass atrocities.
In 2012, the focus was on Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive ResponseArchived 2018-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.
The debate followed on 5 September 2012 saw interventions address the
third pillar of the R2P and the diversity of non-coercive and coercive
measures available for a collective response to mass atrocity crimes.
In 2013, the Secretary-General focused on Responsibility to Protect: State responsibility and preventionArchived 2018-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.
The debate following the report was held on 11 September 2013. A panel
of UN, member state, and civil society experts delivered presentations,
after which 68 member states, 1 regional organization, and 2 civil
society organizations made statements.
Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
In 2004, following the genocidal violence in Rwanda and the Balkans, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Juan E. Méndez
as Special Adviser to fill critical gaps in the international system
that allowed those tragedies to go unchecked. In 2007, Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon appointed Francis M. Deng on a full-time basis at the level
of Under-Secretary-General. Around the same time, he also appointed Edward Luck as the Special Adviser who focuses on the R2P, on a part-time basis at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.
The Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect leads the
conceptual, political, institutional, and operational development of the
R2P. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide acts as a
catalyst to raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to
alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate
and mobilize for appropriate action. The mandates of the two Special
Advisers are distinct but complementary. The efforts of their Office
include alerting relevant actors to the risk of genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity; enhancing the capacity of
the UN to prevent these crimes, including their incitement; and working
with member states, regional and sub-regional arrangements, and civil
society to develop more effective means of response when they do occur.
Both Special Advisers Deng and Luck ended their assignments with
the Office in July 2012. On 17 July 2012, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
appointed Adama Dieng of Senegal as his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. On 12 July 2013, Jennifer Welsh of Canada was appointed as the Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect.
In practice
Kenya, 2007–2008
From December 2007 to January 2008, Kenya was swept by a wave of ethnic violence triggered by a disputed presidential election held on 27 December 2007. On 30 December 2007, Mwai Kibaki
was declared the winner of the presidential elections and was sworn in
as president a couple of hours later. The announcement of the results
triggered widespread and systematic violence resulting in more than
1,000 deaths and the displacement of over 500,000 civilians. Clashes
were characterized by the ethnically targeted killings of people aligned
with the two major political parties, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and the Party of National Unity (PNU).
External intervention was almost immediate. French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner
made an appeal to the UN Security Council in January 2008 to react "in
the name of the responsibility to protect" before Kenya plunged into a
deadly ethnic conflict. On 31 December 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon issued a statement expressing concern for the ongoing violence
and calling for the population to remain calm and for Kenyan security
forces to show restraint. On 10 January 2008, former UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan was accepted by both the ODM and the PNU as
the African Union Chief Mediator. Mediation efforts led to the signing
of a power-sharing agreement on 28 February 2008. The agreement
established Mwai Kibaki as President and Raila Odinga as Prime Minister, as well as the creation of three commissions: the Commission of Inquiry on Post-Election Violence (CIPEV); the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission; and the Independent Review Commission on the General Elections. This rapid and coordinated reaction by the international community was praised by Human Rights Watch as "a model of diplomatic action under the 'Responsibility to Protect' principles".
Ivory Coast, 2011
On 30 March 2011, in response to the escalating post-election violence against the population of Ivory Coast in late 2010 and early 2011, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1975 condemning the gross human rights violations committed by supporters of both ex-President Laurent Gbagbo and President Alassane Ouattara.
The resolution cited "the primary responsibility of each State to
protect civilians", called for the immediate transfer of power to
President Ouattara, the victor in the elections, and reaffirmed that the
United Nations Operation in Ivory Coast
(UNOCI) could use "all necessary means to protect life and property."
On 4 April 2011, in an effort to protect the people of Ivory Coast from
further atrocities, UNOCI began a military operation, and President Gbagbo's hold on power ended on 11 April when he was
arrested by President Ouattara's forces. In November 2011, President
Gbagbo was transferred to the International Criminal Court
to face charges of crimes against humanity as an "indirect
co-perpetrator" of murder, rape, persecution, and other inhumane acts. On 26 July 2012, the Council adopted resolution 2062 renewing the mandate of UNOCI until 31 July 2013. The mission officially ended on 30 June 2017.
Libya
was the first case where the Security Council authorized a military
intervention citing the R2P. Following widespread and systematic attacks
against the civilian population by the Libyan regime, and language used
by Muammar Gaddafi that reminded the international community of the genocide in Rwanda, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1970
on 26 February 2011, making explicit reference to the R2P. Deploring
what it called "the gross and systematic violation of human rights" in
strife-torn Libya, the Security Council demanded an end to the violence,
"recalling the Libyan authorities' responsibility to protect its
population", and imposed a series of international sanctions. The
Council also decided to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.
In resolution 1973,
adopted on 17 March 2011, the Security Council demanded an immediate
ceasefire in Libya, including an end to ongoing attacks against
civilians, which it said might constitute "crimes against humanity". The
Council authorized member states to take "all necessary measures" to
protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, while excluding
a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.
A few days later, acting on the resolution, NATO planes started striking at Gaddafi's forces. NATO subsequently came under scrutiny for its behavior during the air
strikes; concerns included the fact that the intervention quickly moved
to regime-change and that there were allegations regarding aerial bombardments that may have caused civilian casualties.
Central African Republic (CAR), 2013
In December 2012, a loose rebel coalition named the Séléka initiated a military campaign to overthrow the government of the Central African Republic (CAR) and its then-president, Francois Bozizé.
The Séléka, composed mostly of factions of armed groups in the
northeast of the state, accused Bozizé's government of neglecting their
region. They rapidly captured several strategic towns and were poised to
take the capital city of Bangui. A hasty intervention by Chad and the Economic Community of Central African States
(ECCAS) persuaded the Séléka to negotiate with Bozizé's government. The
result, the Libreville Agreement of January 2013, installed a
three-year power-sharing arrangement.
However, ECCAS failed to monitor the implementation of the
Libreville Agreement and Bozizé did not undertake any of the reforms
necessary under the transition agreement. Séléka resurged and took
control of Bangui and fifteen of CAR's sixteen provinces on 24 March
2013. Séléka's leader, Michel Djotodia,
proclaimed himself President, set up the National Transitional Council
(NTC), and suspended CAR's constitution. A hurried ECCAS summit on 4
April 2013, which did not yet recognize Djotodia as President, called
for the creation of a Transitional National Council (TNC), which would
create a new constitution, conduct elections in eighteen months, and
select an interim President. On 13 April, the TNC chose the sole
candidate vying for interim president position, Michel Djotodia.
From December 2012 onward, Séléka forces, who are predominantly
Muslim, committed grave human rights abuses against civilians throughout
the country and especially targeted the majority Christian population. In response, Christian civilians formed "anti-balaka"
("anti-machete") militias, which have conducted vicious reprisals
against Muslims. Extrajudicial killings of Muslim and Christian
civilians have been carried out, including "door to door" searches by
rival militias and mobs seeking potential victims.
The situation in CAR rapidly deteriorated after 5 December 2013,
after an attack in Bangui by anti-balaka militias and loyalists of
ousted President François Bozizé. The attack against former Séléka
rebels sparked widespread violence throughout the capital as well as in
Ouham province in the northwest. The violence marked a significant
escalation of the conflict in CAR. Anti-balaka forces launched another
attack against Muslim neighborhoods of Bangui on 20 December, spurring a
cycle of renewed violence that led to at least 71 deaths by 24
December. A mass grave of at least 30 people who were reportedly
executed and exhibited signs of torture was discovered on 25 December.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) estimates a further 40 civilians were killed on 25 December as
violence continued between anti-balaka and ex-Séléka forces. Eight
African Union (AU) peacekeepers were also killed between 25 and 26
December.
According to OCHA, by September 2013 there were almost 400,000
internally displaced people and about 65,000 new refugees in
neighbouring countries. Humanitarian agencies alerted public opinion to
the critical situation, stressing that 2.3 million CAR citizens (half
the population) were in need of humanitarian assistance.
CAR and the R2P
The crisis in the CAR was a case for the R2P, due to mass atrocity crimes being committed by both sides. During a Security Council briefing on 25 November, UN Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson
said that the world faced "a profoundly important test of international
solidarity and of our responsibility to protect" in CAR. The Security
Council passed Resolution 2127
on 5 December, emphasizing that the NTC has the primary responsibility
to protect the civilian population in CAR. The resolution granted a
Chapter VII mandate to AU and French forces to protect civilians and
restore security, imposed an arms embargo, and established a UN
Commission of Inquiry.
In the beginning, the international response to the coup was
purely diplomatic: members of the International Contact Group insisted
that Michel Djotodia respect the principles set out in the Libreville
agreement. The African Union was the first to react when it announced a
new African-led International Support Mission for CAR (MISCA)
in July 2013. However, MISCA was ineffective in reversing the
deteriorating security situation. Although its mandate was well-defined,
there was general agreement that it lacked the resources to fulfill its
mission. The UN General Assembly put CAR on the international agenda in
September. Resolution 2121,
adopted on 10 October 2013 and sponsored by France, strengthened and
broadened the mandate of the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the
Central African Republic (BINUCA). Aware that MISCA alone would be
unable to adequately tackle the growing insecurity, France changed its
initial position from disengagement to military contribution, as
announced by François Hollande on 20 November 2013, who said that French forces would be reinforced by almost 1,000 troops for a six-month period. France began to deploy troops in CAR after receiving authorization from
the Security Council on 5 December 2013 with Resolution 2127, which
authorizes MISCA and French forces to take "all necessary measures" to
protect civilians and restore security in CAR. French soldiers
immediately began to patrol in Bangui.
On 7 February 2014, it was reported that the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said that she had "opened a preliminary investigation into possible war crimes in the Central African Republic".
Syria
Since 2011, Syria has been fighting in a civil war.
The war in Syria has directly killed 500,000 people, generated 5
million refugees, and internally displaced 7 million people. To help
stop these atrocities the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the
UN, European Union, the League of Arab States, and other countries had
agreed to meet to discuss the situation at stake. The conclusion was
made that the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution
2254, which increased the delivery of humanitarian aid, as well as a
nationwide cessation of hostilities, was required in order to help those
in need. The Commission on Inquiry, mandated by the Human Rights
Council, has found the Syrian government while working with allied
militias, has committed large-scale massacres, perpetrated war crimes
and gross violations of international humanitarian law as a matter of
state policy. The Commission of Inquiry's third report had stated that
the government had committed crimes against humanity through
extermination, murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture,
imprisonment, enforced disappearance, and other inhuman acts. Due to
this statement, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted at least 16
different resolutions with regard to the atrocities taking place in
Syria. Despite all efforts and resolutions adopted to help uphold R2P,
humanitarian aid has had limited success in reaching the affected
populations.
Burundi
The
country of Burundi is at grave risk for a possible civil war, if
violence is not stopped. The civilians of Burundi face the serious and
eminent risk of mass atrocities due to the ongoing political violence
that threatens the stability of Burundi. The citizens of Burundi are
being harmed through mass atrocity crimes due to targeted killings,
widespread violations and abuses of human rights. Violence had increased
after President Pierre Nkurunziza had announced he was seeking a third
term in the country’s elections, and instructing his citizens to disarm
or face action by Burundian Security forces and be labeled enemies of
the nation. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports
cases of sexual violence by security forces, hate speech, and
incitement to violence by some government officials. Responses by the
international community include a Security Council-mandated police force
with the goal of monitoring the situation. This police force has been
rejected by Burundi.
Yemen crisis
With
the current armed conflict in Yemen, many civilians are facing mass
atrocity crimes. These crimes are a result of the violence between
pro-government forces and regional military as they fight against the
Houthi rebels. The Houthi rebels and pro-Saleh personnel currently
control a majority of Yemen, including the country's capital, Sana’a. In
addition to the violence between these groups the nation has also been
barraged by Saudi-led airstrikes for years. Between 26 March 2015 and 8
November 2018, the conflict has resulted in over 6,872 civilian deaths, the majority of these from Saudi-led airstrikes. The
violence has also led to 2.4 million Yemeni civilians being forcibly
displaced leaving 82 percent of the population, equivalent to 21.2
million people, in need of humanitarian assistance. The ongoing violence
in Yemen has allowed third-party armed groups, such as Al-Qaeda, to take advantage of the instability in the nation.
Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022
Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine
has already had an extreme impact on bordering countries. Hundreds of
thousands of refugees have been flooding Romania, Poland, and other
countries in search of safety. While Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and thus not entitled to the
security protections offered by the thirty-two member nations, NATO
Member States have considered the risk to sovereignty that Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine poses. NATO allies are prepared to defend NATO
territory if Russia were to attempt to expand its incursion onto the
territory of NATO Member States.
Israeli siege on Gaza, 2023
Jeremy Moses writes that the lack of mention of R2P in the debates about how to respond to the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
in 2023 "reveals the fundamental weaknesses of the doctrine", given
that information about the crimes committed by the Israeli military in
Gaza are widely known internationally. Ernesto Verdeja
writes that the lack of international response to atrocities in Gaza
either solidified the marginalization of R2P or at least revealed that
it is irrelevant.
Praise
Anne-Marie Slaughter from Princeton University has called R2P "the most important shift in our conception of sovereignty since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648."
Louise Arbour
from the International Crisis Group said that "The responsibility to
protect is the most important and imaginative doctrine to emerge on the
international scene for decades."
Francis Deng, former UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of
Genocide, stated that "R2P is one of the most powerful and promising
innovations on the international scene."
Political scientist Alex Bellamy
argues (i) that there is evidence of behavioral change in the way
international society responds to mass killing and (ii) that R2P
considerations have influenced behavior. On the first point, Bellamy argues that criticism of R2P as
insufficient change is driven by a small subset of cases (Darfur, Libya
and Syria) that are not indicative of strong trends. On the second
point, Bellamy finds that R2P language is used in UNSC deliberations and
in the rhetoric of world leaders.
International relations professor Amitai Etzioni
notes R2P challenges the Westphalian norm that state sovereignty is
“absolute.” R2P establishes “conditional” state sovereignty contingent
upon fulfilling certain domestic and international obligations. Etzioni
considers the R2P norm of conditional sovereignty a communitarian
approach as it recognizes states have the right to self-determination
and self-governance, but they also have a responsibility to the
international community to protect the environment, promote peace, and
not harm their state’s inhabitants.
Criticism
R2P and certain implementations of it have come under criticism by some states and individuals.
National sovereignty
One of the main concerns surrounding R2P is that it infringes upon national sovereignty. This concern is rebutted by the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect.
According to the first pillar of R2P, the state has the responsibility
to protect its populations from mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing,
and according to the second pillar the international community has the
responsibility to help states fulfill their responsibility. Advocates of
R2P claim that the only occasions where the international community
will intervene in a state without its consent is when the state is
either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in
which case the state is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a
sovereign. In this sense, R2P can be understood as reinforcing
sovereignty. In 2004, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,
set up by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, endorsed the emerging norm of
R2P, stating that there is a collective international responsibility
"...exercisable by the Security Council authorizing military
intervention as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other
large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing, and serious violations of
humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or
unwilling to prevent."
Libya, 2011
On 19 March 2011, the Security Council approved Resolution 1973,
which reiterated the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to
protect the Libyan population. The UNSC resolution reaffirmed "that
parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all
feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians." It demanded "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the
current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute
'crimes against humanity'.... It imposed a ban on all flights in the
country's airspace, a no-fly zone, and tightened sanctions on the
Gaddafi government and its supporters." The resolution passed, with 10 in favor, 0 against, and 5 abstentions.
Two of the five abstentions were China and Russia, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council.
India's UN Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri
stated that "the Libyan case has already given R2P a bad name" and that
"the only aspect of the resolution of interest to them (international
community) was use of all necessary means to bomb the hell out of
Libya". Puri also alleged that civilians had been supplied with arms and
that the no-fly zone had been implemented only selectively.
Critics, such as Russia and China, said that the intervening
forces led by NATO in Libya had over-stepped their mandate by taking
actions that ultimately led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. While the Security Council authorised an R2P-based intervention to
protect against government reprisals in rebel-held Benghazi, the UN
resolution was used to provide air support for the rebellion against
Gaddafi, without which he would not have been overthrown. Critics said
the actions of the West in Libya created global skepticism about
proposals put to the UN by the West to intervene in Syria the same year,
putting the future of R2P in question.
Syria, 2011: Russian and Chinese repudiation of abuse of R2P
Several
attempts were made by the U.S. government in the course of 2011 to 2013
to pass Security Council resolutions invoking R2P to justify military
intervention in the Syrian Civil War.
These were vetoed by Russia and China. The Russian and Chinese
governments both issued statements to the effect that, in their opinion,
R2P had been abused by the U.S. as a pretext for "regime change", more
particularly in the case of Libya, and that as far as they were
concerned they would be extremely suspicious of any future Security
Council resolutions invoking R2P, based on past experience. According to
the UN's own 4 October 2011 coverage of the meeting of the Security
Council:
[Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin]
was alarmed that compliance with Security Council resolutions in Libya
had been considered a model for future actions by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO). It was important to see how that model had
been implemented. The demand for a ceasefire had turned into a civil
war, the humanitarian, social and military consequences of which had
spilled beyond Libya. The arms embargo had turned into a naval blockade
on west Libya. Such models should be excluded from global practice.
[…] [China's UN Ambassador Li Baodong]
hoped that the [Syrian] Government would follow through on reform and a
process of dialogue. The Council should encourage those objectives
while respecting Syria's sovereignty's [sic] and territorial integrity.
Any action it took should contribute to peace and stability and comply
with the United Nations Charter principles of non-interference in
internal affairs.
Military intervention
The question of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P remains controversial. Several states have argued that R2P should not allow the international
community to intervene militarily on states, because to do so is an
infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this is a necessary
facet of R2P, and is necessary as a last resort to stop mass atrocities.
A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific
criteria should be developed to determine when the Security Council
should authorize military intervention.
Structural problems
Political
scientist Roland Paris, a proponent of R2P, argues that several
problems regarding usefulness and legitimacy inherent to R2P make it
vulnerable to criticism: "the more R2P is employed as a basis for
military action, the more likely it is to be discredited, but
paradoxically, the same will hold true if R2P's coercive tools go
unused." Paris lists the following problems as inherent to R2P, making it
difficult for proponents of R2P to defend R2P and emboldening critics:
The mixed-motives problem – The legitimacy of R2P rests
upon its altruistic aim. However, states will often be wary to engage in
humanitarian intervention unless the intervention is partly rooted in
self-interest. The appearance that the intervention is not strictly
altruistic consequently leads some to question its legitimacy.
The counterfactual problem – When R2P is successful, there
will not be any clear-cut evidence of its success: a mass atrocity that
did not occur but would have occurred without intervention. Defenders of
R2P consequently have to rely on counterfactual arguments.
The conspicuous harm problem – While the benefits of the
intervention will not be clearly visible, the destructiveness and costs
of the intervention will be visible. This makes it more difficult for
proponents of the intervention to defend the intervention. The
destruction caused by the intervention also makes some question the
legitimacy of the intervention due to the stated purpose of preventing
harm.
The end-state problem – Humanitarian intervention is prone to
expand the mission beyond simply averting mass atrocities. When
successful at averting mass atrocities, the intervenors will often be
forced to take upon themselves more expansive mandates to ensure that
threatened populations will be safe after the intervenors leave.
The inconsistency problem – Due to the aforementioned
problems, in addition to the belief that a particular military action is
likely to cause more harm than good, states may fail to act in
situations where mass atrocities loom. The failure to intervene in any
and all situations where there is a risk of mass atrocities lead to
charges of inconsistency.
Cisheteronormative blindfold
Jess
Gifkins and Dean Cooper-Cunningham build on long-standing research in
genocide studies and on atrocity prevention which demonstrates how
identity-based violence often lays the groundwork for mass atrocity and
conflict escalation. Targeting individuals based on their (presumed)
identities exacerbates the potential for committing atrocity crimes, a
pattern that has persisted throughout history and across various
locations, from atrocities committed by the Nazis to those in Sudan and
Yugoslavia. Despite this, Gifkins and Cooper-Cunningham argue, the R2P
framework and its application has had a longstanding blind spot
regarding the persecution of people with non-heteronormative sexuality
and/or who are not cisgender. This is the consequence of what they call a 'cisheteronormative
blindfold': ignorance of how society privileges cisgender and
heterosexual identities as the norm and fails to recognize the needs of
individuals outside the cisheteronormal. The failure to acknowledge the
heightened vulnerability of queer and transgender individuals has
resulted in substantial tangible repercussions for those subjected to
discrimination due to their perceived non-conforming sexual orientation
or gender identity.
Considering that a major challenge for this new century is the
effective and efficient realisation of human rights for all people, and
that at the same time is needed that all members of the human family
strive for its fulfillment, the DHDR formulates related duties and responsibilities
for our current interdependence. Its preamble states categorically: The
effective enjoyment and implementation of human rights and fundamental
freedoms are inextricably linked to the assumption of the duties and
responsibilities implicit in those rights.....
After fifty years of the adoption of the UDHR and following human
rights instruments, the point of departure of the DHDR Preamble is the
shared concern regarding the lack of political will for enforcing
globally human rights. Moreover, the DHDR takes into account the new
challenges of the global scenario for translating semantically rights
into duties and responsibilities. “Recognising the changes that new
technologies, scientific development and the process of Mondialisation
have brought about, and aware of the need to address their impact upon
and potential consequences for human rights and fundamental freedoms“,
states in its Preamble.
The
drafting of the declaration has been the result of the committed and
disinterested work of a group of experts integrated by Nobel laureates -
Joseph Rotblat, Wole Soyinka and Dario Fo -, scientists, artists and philosophers representing all the regions of the world –among them, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, Richard Falk, Ruud Lubbers, Lord Frank Judd, Sergey Kapitsa, Jakob von Uexküll, Fernando Savater-, and the judicious chairmanship of Richard Goldstone
from South Africa. This process was inspired by the need –in words of
Justice Goldstone- of the transition from a “formal equality” to a
“substantial equality, with a shared concern of the situation of
millions of ignored and marginalised people in our globalised world:
“the recognition of human rights is insufficient, … if such so rights
are to be realized it is necessary that they are enforceable... There
must be a duty on all relevant authorities and individuals to enforce
those rights.” With a convergent perspective, Norberto Bobbio
has entirely supported the initiative and the text of the DHDR, in
particular taking into account the main concern for humanity of
reinforcing the international systems. In that context, he has
established an interesting comparison between the transition from “moral
rights” to “legal rights” and the need to transform “moral duties” into
“legal duties” (See: Norberto Bobbio, Declaration of Human Duties and
Responsibilities, page 98).
In
DHDR Article 1 “duty” and “responsibility” are defined for the purpose
of the declaration: "duty" means an ethical or moral obligation; and
"responsibility", an obligation that is legally binding under existing international law.
The DHDR explains in details the complexity of the exercise of
responsibilities. The bearers are the members of the global community
that have collective, as well as individual duties and responsibilities,
to promote universal observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. “Global community" means both States and non-States actors:
international, regional and sub-regional intergovernmental
organisations, non-governmental organisations, public and private sector
(trans)national corporations, other entities of civil society, peoples,
communities, and individuals taken collectively.
The DHDR reflects the gamut of both states and non-states actors
that have to be mutually supportive bearers of duties and
responsibilities. On the contrary, the UN Millennium Declaration (MD), a
recent international document addressed to the governments, is focused
primarily on the States responsibilities that are shared and collective:
“We /heads of State and Government / recognize that, in addition to our
separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a
collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity,
equality, and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty
therefore to all the world’s people…”
DHDR Article 2 is dedicated to postulate exhaustively the bearers
of duties and responsibilities: “Members of the global community have
collective, as well as individual duties and responsibilities, to
promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms.…” This declaration considers the existence of
collective responsibilities inside the limits traced by the universally
recognized rights, with the implicit consequences of accountability that
would be fairly distributed. The DHDR addresses simultaneously the
responsibilities of individuals and groups. It states: “As the holders
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all individuals, peoples, and
communities in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, have the duty
and responsibility to respect those of others, and a duty to strive for
the promotion and observance thereof”. This statement continues
appropriately the way initiated by the UDHR in Article 29 and reiterates
the interaction of duties, responsibilities, and rights of the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966.
DHDR Chapter 2: The right to life and human security
Most
of the titles of the DHDR chapters enunciate a right or fundamental
freedom that will be the thematic focus of the related duties and
responsibilities. Chapter 2 begins the list of duties and
responsibilities with the right to life and human security, rights to be
secure for the present and also future generations in the awareness
that for the first time in human history the humankind survival is in
peril due to human action. Following the UDHR Article 3 “Everyone has
the right to life, liberty, and security of person”; this chapter draws
our attention to the intergenerational responsibility.
DHDR Article 3 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to
protect the life of every member of the human family and ensure the
survival of both present and future generations. That means “to take
reasonable steps to help others whose lives are threatened, or who are
in extreme distress or need”. A key element of the formulation of the
DHDR has been the present duty and responsibility for the potential
consequences of our actions for the future generations. “The rights of
these future generations are the duties of present generations”
summarises Federico Mayor, the then Director General of UNESCO.
Therefore, the right to peace and the right to live in a balanced
ecological environment have to be recognized and guaranteed. In a
broader sense, the Earth Charter, a declaration of principles for a
sustainable world, emphasises the urgency of sharing responsibility for
caring for the community of life, including the well-being of the human
family.
DHDR Article 4 enunciates the duty and responsibility to promote
collective security and a culture of peace of all members of the global
community. War and conflict prevention, fostering international peace,
global security and cooperation are needed for this purpose. The
responsibility of States, according to UN Chapter 7, is underlined and
also their duty strengthening mediation, conflict prevention, and
post-conflict peace-building mechanisms and peace-keeping capacities.
DHDR Article 5 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to
promote rapid and effective disarmament in the interests of peace.
Primarily the States are in charge of reducing military expenditure in
favour of human development, and together with no-States actors to carry
our nuclear disarmament, to cease any production or use of all chemical
and biological weapons, and use of landmines.
The Duty to intervene to prevent gross human rights violations is
stated in the DHDR Article 6 that means the commission of genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes and other gross or systematic human
rights abuses in all circumstances. States are mainly in charge of
preventing and also punishing such violations, and there is also a
collective duty of the States to intervene in the case where individual
State fails to prevent such abuses. UN Chapter 7 remains general
framework for this responsibility. For defining gross human rights
violations and the need of prevention and punishment this chapter has
been inspired by the Rome Statute that was adopted some months before
this Declaration was finalised.
DHDR Article 7 enunciates the duty and responsibility
unconditionally and in all circumstances to respect international
humanitarian law during times of armed conflict. This law, obligates
government forces, insurgents, and military or paramilitary forces, to
refrain from committing acts of genocide; crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as mass killing, torture or rape.
The focus of DHDR Article 8 is the duty and responsibility of
humanitarian assistance and intervention to those in need. In a
globalised world with millions of displaced people, it is claimed for
the adequate provision of food, shelter, health care and other essential
requirements for survival to ensure the right to life for everyone in
the world.
DHDR Article 9 finishes this chapter with the duty and
responsibility to protect and promote a safe, stable and healthy
environment, promoting respect, protection and preservation of the
uniqueness and diversity of all forms of life. An adequate use of
resources avoiding excessive exploitation and consumption, collaborative
scientific research and exchange of information are required. This
article is similar to the Kyoto Protocol, an international and legally
binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions worldwide, an
urgent change of attitude towards the environment. This duty for the
present and future generations has already been confirmed by a broad
scientific consensus on the existence of climate change and human
responsibility.
DHDR Chapter 3: Human security and an equitable international order
DHDR
Article 10 emphasises the duty and responsibility to promote an
equitable international order for the universal enjoyment of sustainable
human, economic, social, cultural, political, scientific and
technological development and equitable participation in the
decision-making processes for an interdependent and technologically well
equipped world, providing an extensive vision of the general
formulation of the UDHR Article 28: “Everyone is entitled to a social
and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration can be fully realized”. The DHDR statements are
categorical: “Economic policies and development should not be pursued at
the expense of human rights or social development” (6), “Economic and
social development shall not be pursued at the expense of the
environment and natural resources” (7), and “As sovereign and equal
members of the international community, all States have the right to
participate fully, equitably and effectively in international and global
institutions and decision-making processes…(8)” Coincidentally to the
DHDR proposals, the “millennium development goals” of the MD set an
agenda for a global partnership to fight poverty and establishing shared
goals for a better world by 2015. Their fulfillment is measurable by
progress at a quantitative level.
Following the previous article, DHDR Article 11 enunciates the
duty to alleviate usurious debt that would endanger human lives and
impede economic and social development.
This Chapter continues with DHDR Article 12 dedicated to the duty
and responsibility to promote safe, responsible and equitable
scientific and technological development for the benefit of all
humankind. The UNESCO spirit of encouraging universally intellectual and
moral solidarity is emphasised, in particular taking into account the
condition of the lesser scientifically advanced States. This DHDR
approach reinforces fully the importance of the recent UNESCO ethical
documents for biosciences, and also other efforts for codifying ethical
principles for the use of science.
DHDR Article 13 enunciates duties and responsibilities of public
and private sector corporations, indicating as common criteria the
respect for the sovereignty of host countries and simultaneously fully
respect and promotion of universal human rights and international labour
standards. For having an ethical code of the corporations and for
promoting a more sustainable and inclusive global economy, the then UN Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan, has proposed the Global Compact, an international
initiative bringing companies together with UN agencies, labour and
civil society to support universal environmental and social principles,
that was finally launched in 2000.
DHDR Article 14 enunciates the duty and responsibility to prevent
and punish international and organised crime as a shared task of the
members of the global community. This article also has the innovative
approach of global cooperation of the Statute of Rome, for combating of
international crimes, transnational crimes and organised crime and
assisting international criminal tribunals.
The focus of DHDR Article 15 is the duty and responsibility to
eradicate corruption and build an ethical society in both the public and
private sectors, implementing codes of conduct and training programmes,
and promoting accountability, transparency public awareness of the harm
caused by corruption. This emphasis of a code of ethics was also
encouraged by the Global Compact, in particular for the private sector.
DHDR Chapter 4: Meaningful participation in public affairs
DHDR
Article 16 expresses the duty and responsibility to ensure meaningful
participation in public affairs, for ensuring that the authority of
government is based upon the will of the people and the rule of law.
This promoted participation reiterates the universal right to take part
in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives of the UDHR Article 21 at different levels, in local,
national and global governance.
DHDR Chapter 5: Freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and religion
Following
the content of the UDHR Article 16 on the right to freedom of opinion
and expression, DHDR Article 17 reformulates the duty and responsibility
to respect and ensure freedom of opinion, expression, and the media,
providing concrete measures for the world today, affirming the pursuit
of truth as unhindered, and condemning any degrading treatment of
individuals and the presentation of violence as entertainment. And
Article 17 also insists that "the media and journalists have a duty to
report honestly and accurately to avoid incitement of racial, ethnic or
religious violence or hatred. (see: Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
DHDR Article 18 establishes duties and responsibilities
concerning information and communications technologies with the aim of
ensuring universal access to basic communication and information
infrastructure and services. Similarly, UNESCO has already made a
recommendation on information promoting universal access to cyberspace.
DHDR Article 19 enunciates the duty and responsibility to take
all necessary steps to ensure the substantive realisation of the rights
to free assembly and freedom of association.
Finally, DHDR Article 20 formulates the related duty and
responsibility to respect and ensure freedom of religion, belief and
conscience, and of having or not having a religion or belief.
DHDR Chapter 6: The right to personal and physical integrity
DHDR
Article 21 is focused on formulating the duty and responsibility to
respect and ensure the physical, psychological and personal integrity
of all members of the human family in all circumstances, including in
situations of armed conflict, reformulating UDHR articles 10-12
dedicated to the rights to personal integrity and respect for privacy.
DHDR Article 22 enunciates the duty and responsibility to take
all necessary measures to respect and ensure the right to personal
liberty and physical security, primarily by the States, preventing arbitrary arrest and detention
and ensuring that all arrests and detentions are carried out in
accordance with universally recognised standards of fairness and due
process.
DHDR Article 23 emphasises the duty and responsibility to
prohibit and prevent slavery and institutions and practices similar to
slavery and slave-like practices including child prostitution, child
exploitation, enforced prostitution, debt bondage, serfdom, and other
forms of enforced labour inconsistent with international law, punishing
such practices; instituting effective controls to prevent the illegal
trafficking of persons; creating greater public awareness through
education of the human rights abuses associated with such practices. The
UDHR Article 4 states that “no one shall be held in slavery or
servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their
forms”. Today slavery is still not eradicated from the world, although
universally condemned.
DHDR Article 24 enunciates the duty and responsibility to condemn
torture and to take all necessary measures to prevent torture, cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, declaring criminal and
punishing all acts of torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment, enforcing strict controls over places and conditions of
custody of persons deprived of their liberty. This enunciation specifies
the duty for achieving the content of UDHR Article 5: “No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
DHDR Article 25: The duty and responsibility to condemn and to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances
declaring criminal and punishing all acts of forced disappearances,
ensuring that persons deprived of their liberty are only held in
officially recognised places of detention, and that they have adequate
access to judicial officers, legal representation, medical personnel and
family members during the course of their detention.
DHDR Chapter 7: Equality
After
trying to meet the major global challenges of our interdependent world
that are affecting today humankind as a whole, DHDR Chapter 7 rethinks
the principle of equality, such as stated in the first UDHR articles.
Using a similar approach, UNESCO has already approved two meaningful
documents promoting cultural diversity, the UNESCO Universal Declaration
on Cultural Diversity (2001) and the Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). DHDR Article
26 enunciates in general the duty to respect, ensure and promote the
right to equal treatment and to eradicate discrimination in all its forms.
DHDR Article 27 states the duty and responsibility for the
States, primarily, to respect and ensure the substantive equality of
every member of the human family, not only ensuring equality before the
law, but also taking positive action to prevent direct or indirect
discrimination.
DHDR Article 28 enunciates the duty and responsibility to ensure
substantive racial and religious equality. That means ensuring the
effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without
discrimination on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity, and to
condemn all forms of racial and religious discrimination and respect
racial, ethnic and religious diversity; promoting equal opportunities
for all.
DHDR Article 29 formulates the duty and responsibility to ensure
sex and gender equality and the recognition of women's rights as human
rights. In particular the States have to ensure the effective enjoyment
of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination on
the basis of sex or gender, promoting the equality in the representation
and participation of women in the public and political life, the
eradication of cultural, religious and social practices which
discriminate against women; the economic empowerment of women and the
recognition of the full legal capacity of women.
DHDR Article 30 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to
ensure the substantive equality of persons with a disability, and to
ensure the enjoyment and exercise of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms without discrimination on the basis of disability.
Some progress towards the accomplishment of this duty can be
observed at international level. In March 2006, the UN Programme on
Disability has been consolidated into the Secretariat for the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
DHDR Chapter 8: Protection of minorities and indigenous peoples
Reinforcing the fulfillment of equality, the aim of Chapter 8 is to emphasise the need for protection of minorities and indigenous peoples.
Both the global community and the States are considered by this
Declaration as the major responsible parties, collectively and
individually for ensuring the rights of these vulnerable groups.
DHDR Article 31 formulates the duty and responsibility to respect
and protect the existence, identity and rights of national, ethnic,
religious and linguistic minorities, giving the States a primary duty
and responsibility to take adequate measures. The above referred efforts
of the UNESCO for protecting the value of cultural diversity and
cultural expressions are a reflection of this obligation.
DHDR Article 32 enunciates the duty and responsibility to
respect, protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, in
particular, their right to preserve, maintain and develop their
identities and to protect their means of livelihood, in a general
context of respect of universal human rights. Indigenous rights should
be protected at a national level, but it is also needed that the
international community collectively assumes their responsibility. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was approved in September 2007 by the UN General Assembly in order to protect these rights universally.
DHDR Chapter 9: Rights of the child and the elderly
Chapter
9 deals also with the implementation of the principle of equality
taking into account the primary responsibilities of the States for
children and elderly rights.
DHDR Article 33 emphasises the duty and responsibility to respect, protect and promote the rights of the child, following the content of the almost universally ratified UN Convention on the Right of the Child
(1989) and aware, that although this document is shared broadly by the
international community, today millions of children are still innocent
victims of armed conflict, extreme poverty and hunger.
DHDR Article 34 is dedicated to the formulation of the duty and
responsibility to promote and enforce the rights and well-being of the
elderly, trying to ensure the full and effective enjoyment by elderly
people of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without
discrimination on the basis of age, and to respect the well-being,
dignity and physical and personal integrity of the elderly. Although
major efforts are being made by the United Nations, such as the
International Year of Older Persons (1999) and the formulation of UN
Principles addressing the independence, participation, care,
self-fulfillment and dignity of older persons, and by regional and
national efforts, there does not yet exist a recognised framework for
securing their rights. Therefore, the DHDR contributes to enforcing the
rights of the elderly.
DHDR Chapter 10: Work, quality of life and standard of living
DHDR Chapter 10 complements the system of duties and responsibilities related to the right to work, quality of life and standard of living.
To do that, the DHDR takes into account at the same time, the
responsibility of the States and the shared responsibility of the world
community in the context of the global interdependence.
DHDR Article 35 formulates the duty and responsibility to promote
the right to justly remunerated work, following the statement of UDHR
Article 23. Measures are proposed by the DHDR such as adopting policies
designed to promote productive work, ensuring employment security - in
particular, protection against arbitrary or unfair dismissal - and
ensuring equality of opportunity and conditions of work.
DHDR Article 36 emphasises the duty and responsibility to promote
quality of life and an adequate standard of living for all. Although in
the UDHR Article 22 it states the States obligation of fulfilling “the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and
the free development of his personality”, today our interdependent world
is not free from hunger and there is not universal access to adequate
food and clean water for everyone. The DHDR reiterates the shared
responsibility for eradicating extreme poverty from the world, in
particular if we consider the sufficiency of material resources for
meeting this challenge. Similarly, but with a more pragmatic approach,
the Millennium Development Goals
(2000) establishes an intergovernmental agreement for realising
globally human rights. These transitional goals indicate a course for
implementing human rights in a continuous process with measurable
criteria. However, it would be positive to promote a dialogue on the
achievement and evolution of the achievement of those goals with the
help of this systematised view on universal duties and responsibilities.
DHDR Chapter 11: Education, arts and culture
DHDR
Chapter 11 is dedicated to formulating duties and responsibilities on
the promotion of education, arts and culture, major topics of the
UNESCO, such as the programmes like “education for all” and its various
instruments for securing adequate conditions for education and artistic
and cultural activities.
DHDR Article 37 enunciates the duty and responsibility to promote and enforce the right to education,
taking into account that illiteracy still affects millions of people in
the developing countries This is coincident with the already referred Millennium Development Goals.
DHDR Article 38 emphasises the duty and responsibility to foster
arts and culture by the States and the global community in general,
similar to the UNESCO statements.
DHDR Chapter 12: Right to a remedy
DHDR
finishes with Chapter 12 dedicated to the right to a remedy where a
human right or fundamental freedom is threatened or has been violated.
The DHDR Article 39 enunciates the duty and responsibility,
primarily of the States, to provide for and enforce effective national
judicial, administrative, legislative and other remedies for these cases, in similarity with the UDHR Article 8.
This Chapter proposes in article 40 the duty to monitor and
implement the Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities, by
establishing tripartite councils composed of State, civil society and
private sector representatives in cooperation with States, relevant
civil society organisations, national, regional and international
inter-governmental organisations.
The DHDR Article 41 contains a non-derogation clause where it
states: “Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as impairing
or restricting the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments.”
