In her manuscript Elisa Ravasi examines how the ECtHR responds to the growing challenges of overlapping legal systems. She focuses, in particular, on the relationship between the ECHR and EU law. First, she systematically analyses 10 years of ECtHR jurisprudence on the principle of equivalent protection and develops an innovative analysis scheme for its application. Afterwards, she examines the equivalency of the human rights protection provided by the ECJ in light of the minimum standards of the ECHR in three specific fields (naming law, ne bis in idem and equality of arms). Finally, she considers whether the presumption of equivalent protection of the ECtHR in favour of the EU is still justified.
In 2014 a unhrc report found North Korea was practicing mass atrocities, contravening the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm, and it called for sanctions and referral of the matter to the International Criminal Court. This paper assesses the report’s impact upon ‘the matter of human rights in North Korea’ and upon the R2P norm itself. We find that when a relatively ‘demanding’ standard is applied, whereby R2P is judged to be effective only if it affects the actual human rights situation, the report has had little impact. But judging impact according to a more ‘forgiving’ standard suggests the report has substantially affected international debates about human rights in North Korea. We also argue that the report affected the R2P norm itself: specifically, Pillars i and ii are now considered relevant in cases of ‘chronic’ abuse, although strong opposition to the position that Pillar iii measures are also relevant remains strong.
This paper argues that the influence of R2P can be seen in many subtle, yet significant, ways throughout the Arms Trade Treaty, from the language used to the obligations imposed on States Parties. The Arms Trade Treaty indicates that R2P is influencing decision making and contributing to the protection of populations from atrocity crimes by obliging States Parties to explicitly consider the consequences of their arms transfers. In addition, the Arms Trade Treaty has increased our understanding of R2P by confirming that R2P involves a range of measures and includes restraint by States in refusing to transfer arms in situations where atrocity crimes are being committed, which may temper concerns about R2P being rebranded as assistance.
This contribution uses the analytical lens of ‘reluctance’ to assess some of the broader implications of the arguments made by Hardeep Singh Puri in Perilous Interventions. Based on a conceptualization of reluctance that entails the two constitutive dimensions of ‘hesitation’ and ‘recalcitrance’, the article finds that India was only moderately reluctant when it came to unscr 1973, but grew increasingly reluctant vis-à-vis r2p after military operations in Libya. Puri’s book reveals how India’s growing reluctance on r2p was shaped by the perception that the West was driven by an appetite for interventionism and regime change. These insights are helpful to make sense of the broader phenomenon of India’s and other rising powers’ reluctant approach to world politics. Reluctance can result from efforts to deal with either competing expectations articulated by different actors, or with competing norms (e.g., protection of civilians and sovereignty; status recognition as a responsible country and autonomy).
This article reflects on Hardeep Singh Puri’s approach towards the responsibility to protect (r2p) in Perilous Interventions, and, in so doing, also on the approaches generally taken in the Indian debate on the subject. It looks, in particular, at issues that both tend not to consider, limiting their contribution to the discourse on r2p. In this regard, the book is characteristic of critical Indian assessments of r2p, which have a narrow focus on the norm’s interventionist pillar and a further tendency to view it through a West/non-West, interest-based lens. This, in turn, contributes to an internal discourse that pivots on selected, individual cases of intervention – as does the book – while precluding a richer and conceptual engagement with the norm. The book is also preoccupied with the negative consequences of military intervention and the lessons of failure, so much so that it misses an opportunity to consider more fully how the use of force for human-rights protection might be made less perilous or less necessary.
This article analyses Perilous Interventions: The Security Council and the Politics of Chaos by Hardeep Singh Puri, a retired senior diplomat and India’s former Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York. It outlines the structure and argument of the book, which addresses foreign interventions in various conflicts over the past three decades, including those in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and Sri Lanka, and the emergence of the concept of Responsibility to Protect. It argues that Perilous Interventions is a significant, if problematic, book insofar as it signals that deep scepticism about r2p persists in important sections of the policymaking elite in New Delhi, despite India’s rising power, growing capabilities, and changing relationships with major powers, including the United States. It also introduces the remaining three articles in this special section.
This article argues that Hardeep Singh Puri’s Perilous Interventions fails to fully grasp the risk of perilous nonintervention. It makes two central points. First, the fallacious critique of intervention reflects a worryingly narrow understanding of the r2p, particularly its third pillar, which overlooks the contributions that the r2p can make more generally. Second, Puri’s account highlights a clear lack of responsible leadership on behalf of India, in particular in relation to its failure to support fully the ‘Responsibly while Protecting’ proposal and lack of critique of the foreign policy of Russia.
Recent years have seen an increased emphasis on protection of civilians and the problem of sexual violence. The Security Council has adopted a number of resolutions towards improving the status of women in the realm of peace and security. However, we do not know if this translates into action by the Security Council in terms of deploying peacekeepers to respond to sexual violence. In this paper, we examine to what extent the prevalence of sexual violence increases the likelihood that the un chooses to deploy peacekeeping operations. In doing so, we acknowledge that sexual violence is an underreported phenomenon, about which the Security Council may not have perfect information. We explore this question by using data from the svac dataset in all intrastate armed conflicts, 1989–2009, which provides information about sexual violence as reported by three main agencies. We examine to what extent sexual violence, as reported by different agencies, is correlated with a higher likelihood that the un deploys a peacekeeping operation. Our findings suggest that reports of sexual violence on average increase the likelihood of a peacekeeping operation. However, depending on which of the sources we consider, we find contradictory findings for whether the un responds differently to sexual violence perpetrated by states and non-state actors respectively.
Holding UNPOL to Account: Individual Criminal Accountability of United Nations Police Personnel analyzes whether the mechanisms that address criminal accountability of United Nations police personnel serving in peace operations are effective, and if there is a problem, how it can be mitigated.
The volume reviews the obligations of States and the UN to investigate and prosecute criminal acts committed by UN police, and examines the jurisdictional and immunity issues involved. It concludes that these do not constitute legal barriers to accountability, although immunity poses some problems in practice. The principal problem appears to be the lack of political will to bring prosecutions, as well as a lack of transparency, which makes it difficult accurately to determine the scale of the problem.