... violence in Syria but so far it hasn’t been able to provide an effective framework to prevent and stop these atrocities. The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine - adopted in 2005 to embody the promises made by world leaders to prevent a future “Cambodia”,... ... invoked yet, because substantial disagreements over R2P’s practical implementation led to a political stalemate at the UN Security Council. And it is not surprising as the doctrine in its current form was never meant to be a panacea.
First of all,...
... interventions, having United Nations authorization represents broad support and eliminates cases where the “responsibility to protect” rhetoric is used to cover up military intervention that does not serve humanitarian purposes.
The norm of the responsibility to protect was unanimously adopted by all UN Member States (Libya and Syria were among those who endorsed this norm, but have failed to uphold it). Any military intervention outside of a UN Security Council mandate is subject to severe criticism and censure, and should be considered as a forceful infringement on the sovereignty of a nation state.
Military intervention is a very challenging decision to make and one that is even harder ...
... voting on this resolution, which was adopted. During the operation the alliance then morphed the original mission of saving civilians into one of a bringing about a regime change. The operation in Libya thus exceeded its mandate and the norm of the responsibility to protect was damaged in the eyes of some nations, including China and Russia. This is partly responsible for the failure on the part of the Security Council to take any decisive actions on Syria – Russia now suspects Western nations of pushing their own geopolitical agendas in Syria. Such excess of UN mandate as in Libya might have jeopardized the concept of the responsibility to protect ...
... casualties and with coalition forces intervening in that country within 3 days of adopting resolution 1973[3] – where the UN Security Council condemned war crimes and crimes against humanity in that country and authorized all necessary measures to protect ... ... with its massive crimes against humanity should be a perfect candidate for military intervention according to the norm of the responsibility to protect. It seems that a just cause is present, yet the international community is paralyzed with inaction.
...
... primary motivation for intervention (Right intention)
the international community can supply adequate means and the intervention will bring more good than harm (Proportional means and reasonable prospect)
the military intervention is authorized by the UN Security Council (Right authority)
Criterion 1: Last resort
The end goal of any conflict, including a military one, is to find a negotiated solution. Yet before military intervention is considered as an option we must first be sure that a negotiated ...
... incapable of responding to the realities on the ground.
In contrast, we also have a case like Libya with 1,000-3,000 casualties and the Coalition forces intervening in the country within 3 days of adoption of resolution 1973. In this resolution the UN Security Council condemned war crimes and crimes against humanity in that country and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians.
Thus, enshrined in the concept of responsibility to protect case by case basis of making decision on conducting military interventions encourages politicization and selective approach to conflicts.
The United Nations’ primary purpose is to serve the peoples of the world, and ...
