Failing to fulfil the responsibility to protect: the war on drugs as crimes against humanity in the Philippines

Abstract

The article provides the first substantive analysis of the war on drugs in the Philippines under the Responsibility to Protect. It develops in two stages. First, it argues that the war on drugs constitutes crimes against humanity through an analysis of, (i) extrajudicial killings and vigilante justice, (ii), dehumanisation, and, (iii) the exaggeration of threat. Second, it examines the response of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (p5) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Despite that the US, the UK, and France have expressed public concerns, we show that they prioritise counter-terrorism and trade over the Responsibility to Protect. Meanwhile, China and Russia uphold the view that the war on drugs is a matter of domestic jurisdiction. Regarding ASEAN, we draw on 26 semi-structured elite interviews conducted in South East Asia (2016-2018) to evidence that the elites prioritise state sovereignty and non-interference. The outcome is that there is a significant protection deficit as the government of the Philippines, the p5, and ASEAN are failing to protect those targeted in the war on drugs. We hope that the article will act as a catalyst for a much needed conversation on the international community’s political, legal, and moral responsibilities regarding mass violence against drug users in international relations.

Keywords:

• The responsibility to protect
• war on drugs
• crimes against humanity
• permanent five
• Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgments

A version of this article was presented at the 25th International Studies Political Association World Congress of Political Science, Brisbane, July 2018. We would like to thank the discussant Phil Orchard and panellists Eglantine Staunton, Luke Glanville and Cecilia Jacob for their comments. In addition to this, we thank Aidan Hehir, Alex Beresford, Daniel Wand, Garrett W. Brown, Kaisa Hinkkainen, Kalina Zhekova, Mark Kersten, Sam Wyatt, Jewellord Nem Singh and Yoshiharu Kobayashi for their comments on earlier versions of the article. For further information please contact Adrian Gallagher, [email protected], Euan Raffle [email protected] or Zain Maulana [email protected]

Notes

1 There is precedent for this as the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect have all included the Philippines in their reports on mass atrocities around the world.

2 The first was signed by 39 countries in September 2017. The second was signed by 38 countries in June 2018.

3 To put this in context, consider that in December 2017 the Dutch Government published an opinion concerning the question of whether politicians can make the determination of genocide. The Dutch government concluded that an international judicial ruling is not required and politicians can deal with the question if they contact an adequate inquiry and consider all evidence. This countered the Dutch Parliament’s judgement that politicians are not best placed to rule on genocide and this should be left to international legal bodies (see Ochab2018). The UK Government, after pressures from Parliamentarians, has been dealing with a similar question. However, the UK government continues to argue that it is not for politicians but for the international judicial systems to make the determination. In the UK there is an on-going debate regarding the 'Genocide Determination Bill', which is before both houses. Although these do not cover Crimes Against Humanity, they help illustrate the limitations of academic research which can only be addressed by a fact-finding mission such as those conducted by a Commission of Inquiry.

4 The submitted file can be retrieved at https://www.scribd.com/document/387196374/Communication-and-Complaint-by-Rise-Up-for-Life-and-for-Rights#from_embed

5 We draw on Paul Williams distinction between ‘selectivity (supporting existing good practices) rather than conditionality (providing assistance on the promise of the recipient reforming its activities in the future)’, Williams (2015, p. 4).

6 We discuss two potential rebuttals below regarding strategy and competing priorities.

7 Indonesia’s Head of Anti-Narcotics Agency stated that they would not utilise extrajudicial killing but went onto contextualise this by saying ‘I never say that we have to follow the Philippines. We have our own laws, but I have to say, though, that Duterte’s policy shows he is taking care of his citizens’ (Davies & Reinard,2017).

8 Pape (1997) responds to Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliot's study’s claim of 34% success and concludes a more realistic total is 5%. Since then, Morgan, Bapat, and Kobayashi (2014) collected data on both imposed sanctions and sanction threats and find that the success rate is about 38% if we apply a restrictive definition of success and 56% if a less restrictive definition is applied.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adrian Gallagher

Adrian Gallagher was awarded a Ph.D. in 2011 from the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council). He is currently employed as an Associate-Professor in International Security in the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds. He is also Research Director for the European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Director for Postgraduate Studies. To date, he has published one monograph and eight articles in journals such as Review of International Studies, International Theory, International Affairs, and International Relations as well as co-editing special issues of Global Responsibility to Protect and International Politics. He has been PI or CoI on over £300,000 of research funding and has a proven track record of informing policymaking through his professional service to the UK Government. He is also a member of International Studies Association, British International Studies Association, European International Studies Association and The International Political Science Association.

Euan Raffle

Euan Raffle is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds. His research is concerned with how the apparently moribund ‘war on drugs’ has found a new lease of life within Southeast Asia over the past fifteen years. The project itself attempts to account for how and why elites in certain Southeast Asian countries have sustained the language of the ‘war on drugs’ to legitimize extrajudicial violence, despite international consensus moving away from such approaches up to and after the UN general Assembly Special Session on Drugs held in 2016. Utilising the Aberystwyth School of security as a theoretical starting point, the thesis attempts to show how drug policy reform can be read as a form of emancipatory politics, which challenges the violent and often exclusionary discourses of the ‘war on drugs’.

Zain Maulana

Zain Maulana is a fourth year Ph.D. candidate in Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds. His research explains the engagement of Southeast Asian states with Responsibility to Protect (R2P) from the perspective of norm socialisation. Not only does the research focus on norm contestation between R2P and ASEAN principles, but it also examines the rhetorical behaviour of ASEAN states toward R2P. The research applies the perspective of communicative action and the concept of norm localisation to explain the complexity of R2P socialisation in the context of ASEAN regionalism and examine the gap of the states’ behaviour towards R2P. The research is expected to contributes in two areas: (i) the study of norm socialisation and (ii) the evolution of R2P especially in terms of the implementation of the principle in the ASEAN regionalism context.