The “responsibility to protect” our answer to “never again”? Libya, Syria and a critical analysis of R2P

Abstract

Debates over the use of force for humanitarian purposes have been some of the most profound and fascinating of the international society in the post-Cold War period. A surge of intrastate violence in the 1990s and the lack of appropriate response by the international community led UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his counterparts to vow “never again” and to call for a reinterpretation of how we think about humanitarian intervention. The response was a report issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 entitled, “The Responsibility to Protect” (often referred to as R2P or RtoP) which set about to reconceptualize the seemingly contradictory notions of state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. Adopted by the UN in 2005, much has been critically written about the norm on all sides. However, not until the Libyan civil conflict in 2011 did we see an actual case in which R2P was specifically invoked to justify military intervention, and thus one where we could test its merits. Many argue Libya shows successful application of R2P, while some say its mandate was overextended. Nonetheless, it has prompted comparisons and contrasts to the situation in Syria, where over 100,000 people have died but where military intervention has not been pursued. This paper analyzes the decisions in both of these instances and the resulting deficiencies of R2P that were highlighted by Libya and Syria: first, the continued subservience of humanitarian norms to political concerns, and second, the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding operational aspects of military intervention. Libya and Syria have both wounded the credibility of the norm.

Keywords:

• responsibility to protect (R2P)
• humanitarian intervention
• Libya
• Syria
• norm
• UN
• sovereignty

Notes

1. Throughout this paper, the international community refers to the United Nations (UN).

2. For the purposes of this paper, I will define humanitarian intervention as “action taken by a state or group of states, in the territory of another state against that state or its leaders, without the state’s consent, which is justified partially or in whole by humanitarian or protective concerns for the population of the host state” (Labonte, 2013, p. 24, quoting the ICISS, 2001, p. 8, and Hehir, 2008, p. 20).

3. Norm in this case is defined as a “shared expectation(s) of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity. There is general consensus that RtoP is a norm” (Bellamy, 2010, p. 160, citing Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, p. 891). Regarding its inclusion in the 2005 World Summit Document, it may be referred to in some cases as a “principle.”

4. R2P – even with its inclusion in the 2005 World Summit Document – is not legally binding.

5. The UNSC is arguably the most powerful body within the UN. Its mandate is to provide global peace and security.

6. Since 1948, almost 20 statutes, declarations, conventions and standards relating to human rights have been invoked.

7. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

8. UN approval to explicitly intervene was not given in either case. However, certain UN resolutions were used for legitimation purposes.

9. Internally displaced people, unlike refugees, have not crossed international borders, but have stayed in their home countries while fleeing similar issues as refugees – genocide, human rights violations; thus in legal terms, they remain under the protection of their home government (UNHCR, 2001–2013).

10. “Just War” theory asserts that there must be authority, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects of success (Weiss, 2004, p. 138).

11. Resolution 1674 and 1894 both pertain to the “protection of civilians in armed conflict” (UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution, 1674).

12. The Arab uprisings refer to a series of protests that swept across the Middle East. Citizens demanded more rights and greater government accountability, among other political and economic grievances.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kathryn Kersavage

Kathryn Kersavage is the Coordinator for Turkey and Middle East Affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC, where she provides project and program support on initiatives that promote US trade and investment with markets in the region. Before joining the Chamber, Kathryn worked as a litigation and antitrust paralegal for 2 years, focusing on international arbitration cases and corporate mergers and acquisitions. In addition, she also worked on short projects at the Middle East Institute, International Business-Government Counsellors, Inc., and spent time on Capitol Hill. Kathryn has her BA in international affairs and Middle East studies from the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, where her research focused on US foreign diplomacy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under the Clinton Administration. She also received her MSc in comparative politics and conflict studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Kathryn was born in Saudi Arabia and has lived and studied in the Middle East for over 14 years.