Conceptualising Responsibility Comprehensively to Facilitate Internal Resolution – twail Perspectives to an icj-Routed r2p
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Kartik Kalra in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
twail scholarship has been highly critical of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) norm, citing the unfairness in its ahistorical and decontextualised allocation of responsibility for contemporary ethnic strife. Alongside the norm’s inability to capture the complex, historical creation of contemporary ethnic violence – much of which involved the Western world – state interventions in r2p’s pursuance have been unsuccessful in protecting populations. This has prompted the exploration of alternatives to humanitarian interventions, with one such alternative being an ‘icj-routed r2p’: a mode of moving the Court to obtain its findings pointing to a state’s commission of genocidal and other prohibited acts. This mode of obtaining judicial findings of r2p-prohibited acts is, I propose, compatible with the principles and ideas endorsed in twail thinking, for it is capable of (a) undertaking a genuine, historicised assessment of responsibility in the emergence of ethnic strife; (b) avoiding r2p’s colonial connotations by accepting an intervention’s normative impermissibility, instead entrenching the international community’s role as solely facilitating a state’s internal resolution of violence; and (c) pursuing a sustainable cessation of violence alongside other Pillar Two strategies.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 398 | 398 | 76 |
| Full Text Views | 37 | 37 | 8 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 168 | 168 | 21 |
Conceptualising Responsibility Comprehensively to Facilitate Internal Resolution – twail Perspectives to an icj-Routed r2p
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Kartik Kalra in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
twail scholarship has been highly critical of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) norm, citing the unfairness in its ahistorical and decontextualised allocation of responsibility for contemporary ethnic strife. Alongside the norm’s inability to capture the complex, historical creation of contemporary ethnic violence – much of which involved the Western world – state interventions in r2p’s pursuance have been unsuccessful in protecting populations. This has prompted the exploration of alternatives to humanitarian interventions, with one such alternative being an ‘icj-routed r2p’: a mode of moving the Court to obtain its findings pointing to a state’s commission of genocidal and other prohibited acts. This mode of obtaining judicial findings of r2p-prohibited acts is, I propose, compatible with the principles and ideas endorsed in twail thinking, for it is capable of (a) undertaking a genuine, historicised assessment of responsibility in the emergence of ethnic strife; (b) avoiding r2p’s colonial connotations by accepting an intervention’s normative impermissibility, instead entrenching the international community’s role as solely facilitating a state’s internal resolution of violence; and (c) pursuing a sustainable cessation of violence alongside other Pillar Two strategies.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 398 | 398 | 76 |
| Full Text Views | 37 | 37 | 8 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 168 | 168 | 21 |