How the Responsibility to Protect Influences the Security Council’s Powers, Limits and Dynamic

In: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
View More View Less
  • 1 Phd candidate at the Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany, lisa-marie.komp@law-school.de

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

In 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was adopted in the World Summit Outcome with the aim to enable an efficient response to humanitarian crises by making the Security Council “work better”. The swift reaction to the events in Libya sparked the hope that the new concept enabled the Security Council to function this smoothly in the future. The debates within the Council in relation to the NATO intervention demonstrate that the Responsibility to Protect was able to contribute to this success in certain, limited ways. At the same time, these debates were herald to the problems experienced in relation to the events in Syria. Through an analyses of the debates concerning Libya within the Council, debates in other UN bodies related to the new concept, State practice, and relevant documents, this article will outline the potential of the Responsibility to Protect to make the Council “work better”, as well as its limitations.

  • 15

    Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 13, para. 18.

  • 20

    Ian Brownlie, as cited in Lamb, supra note 18, at 375.

  • 21

    Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 13.

  • 26

    Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 13, para. 30.

  • 33

    Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 13, par. 29; and Lamb, supra note 18, at 365.

  • 46

    Zifcak, supra note 41, at 516.

  • 52

    C. Stahn, supra note 36, at 101.

  • 60

    Jennings, supra note 57, at 36.

  • 61

    Luck, supra note 55, at 18.

  • 62

    Stahn, supra note 36, at 100.

  • 64

    Stahn, supra note 36, at 108.

  • 69

    Weiss, supra note 10, at 149.

  • 70

    Blokker, supra note 6, at 561-63.

  • 86

    Ki-moon, supra note 48, para. 10 (b).

  • 89

    Ki-moon, supra note 48, para. 61.

  • 90

    Luck, supra note 55, at 21.

  • 100

    Stahn, supra note 36, at 114.

  • 103

    Motion on Jurisdiction, supra note 24, para. 15.

  • 129

    A/RES/60/1, supra note 46, para. 139.

  • 147

     See Orford, supra note 38, at 168; Lamb, supra note 18, at 376; and M. Benchikh, ‘Rapport Introductif´ in M. Benchikh, Les Organisations Internationales et les Conflits Armés 19 (2001), at 46–48.

  • 149

    Annan, supra note 5, para. 125.

  • 153

    Ki-moon, supra note 3.

  • 158

    Ki-moon, , supra note 3, para. 12.

  • 173

    Luck, supra note 55, at 17.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 130 54 22
Full Text Views 150 6 1
PDF Views & Downloads 27 6 1