Although international norms on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P
), norms stemming from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the agenda of Women, Peace and Security (wps) have shifted the narrative from a state-centric to a human-centric approach to security, they have failed to intersect in the most difficult contexts. This paper examines the intersections between Pillar iii of R2P, Resolution 1325 and the agenda of wps with a focus on protection in Gaza. Within the Gaza context, all authorities can be seen as failing in their responsibility to protect, however, no steps have been taken toward operationalisation of protection under R2P. Examining protection through a gendered lens provides a critical mirror of strategies of protection as well as a roadmap towards improvement. The article argues that R2P in combination with the agenda of wps provides a potential tool for constructing a consensus prioritising protection of civilians in the most difficult contexts.
What instruments and mechanisms are available to harness the ‘political will’ to pursue justice for the allegations of ‘atrocity crime’ in Rakhine, Myanmar? Analysing country’s ratification trend, declarations upon ratification on relevant global instruments, and interactions with the un on human rights issues, this paper reveals the ‘mind’ of Myanmar and its obligations. Exploring the mechanism of four International Crime Tribunals (icts), it outlines the pathways to pursue justice. Revealing the inadequacies of current actions by key state actors resulting in invidious outcomes that privilege impunity for atrocity crimes, the paper suggests ways to harness the political will to pursue justice. This paper contends that the establishment of an ict for the trial of atrocity crimes in Rakhine (ictm-R) would be best facilitated by: a consensus mandate to prosecute individuals and not the state; precisely defined jurisdiction; and provisions to integrate the host nation’s apparatus, buttressed by the advocacy of the right groups and media.
Recently, there has been increasing recognition that the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P) and refugee protection are inextricably linked and conceptually connected. The question remains, however, whether the link between the two protection frameworks can provide a basis for the protection of prima facie refugees fleeing mass atrocity crimes. This article identifies that prima facie refugees have the right to protection irrespective of where they arrive. It finds that the prima facie provision is one that exists under international refugee law and is highly relevant to the R2P principle. R2P facilitates a framework of prima facie protection, but it must include the political and legal norms of R2P and international refugee law. The article argues that expanding the idea of R2P and refugee protection as an interlinked agenda offers a protection-oriented framework to address the protection needs of prima facie refugees fleeing mass atrocity crimes.
European Judicial Responses to Security Council Resolutions: A Consequentialist Assessment, Kushtrim Istrefi examines the multiple effects of European courts decisions as regards Security Council targeted sanctions and security detentions interfering with fundamental rights. He elaborates what type of judicial responses ensured real and practical respect for human rights for the petitioners, encouraged Security Council due process reform, clarified Security Council authorisations on security detentions, and tested the primacy and universal character of the UN Charter.
Making use of legal and non-legal instruments, Istrefi sheds some light upon what happened to, among others, petitioners, the SC due process reform agenda, and the UN Charter after such cases as
I present an account of mass atrocity prevention based on just war theory precepts. This account entails comparisons among policy options and requires selecting the politically feasible option that has the greatest chance of avoiding atrocities. Adopting such an account of atrocity prevention highlights problems in influential mass atrocity prevention policy reports in that they fail to seriously consider nonviolent civil resistance as a mass atrocity prevention tool. Given that sometimes actors may be unwilling to live under the status quo, and agitate for reform by violent or nonviolent means, nonviolence is generally the preferable policy option. This is because under realistic scenarios, the empirical evidence generally indicates that nonviolent means are more likely to achieve positive outcomes across a range of indicators than violent ones. I illustrate my argument by applying it to strategies for democratisation, and rebut objections. Yet, nonviolent civil resistance is risky, and so revolutionary leaders and their supporters should weigh carefully the chances of success and the trade-offs of nonviolent resistance.
This essay explores the intellectual context and conceptual foundations of R2P. Michael Walzer reinitiated debates about humanitarian intervention by grounding sovereignty and non-intervention in individual human rights and communal autonomy (self-determination). Liberal cosmopolitan critics of Walzer highlighted the tension between these two values, and proposed that sovereignty should rather be grounded in individual rights and democratic self-determination. In the post-Cold War era, international lawyers and international relations scholars came to endorse the idea that state sovereignty is qualified by the most basic human rights. High ranking UN officials further proposed that state sovereignty should be redefined as the sovereignty of the people, which, however, was seen as coextensive with the protection of the fundamental individual rights, and as such could be shared by the ‘international community’. R2P adopted a similar approach, glossing over the potential tensions between sovereignty, self-determination and human rights.
This article conducts a normative evaluation of the American missile strike on a Syrian airbase in April 2017 to assess whether it could be described as a responsible action. Marking a departure from President Trump’s ‘America First’ approach, the missile attack was incessantly justified by administration officials using the terminologies of ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’. The article utilises the theoretical propositions of the English School of International Relations to clarify the three benchmarks of a responsible action: acting legally, legitimately and prudently. A detailed examination of the official statements and the global political developments surrounding the strike suggests that although the action cannot be justified on the grounds of legality, it may still be described as responsible on the grounds of legitimacy and prudence. On its own, the strike can serve as an example of responsible statecraft, although these findings cannot be applied to the rest of President Trump’s foreign policy.