Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- List of Authors
- Introduction
- Part I The Moral Underpinnings and Political Ends of R2p
- Part II International Institutions And Their Role In R2p
- PART III De Facto Regimes and Non-State Actors Within a State And as a State
- Part IV R2p and Due Dilligence Regarding the Conduct of Corporations
- Part V The Interaction Between R2p And Humanitarian Law Obligations To Protect Civilian Populations
- PART VI R2p and International Criminal Law Beyond the Four R2p Crimes
- Part VII R2p and its Possible Impact on the Law of International Responsibility
- The ICJ Judgment in the Genocide Convention Case: Is R2P Drawing New Horizons for the Law on State Responsibility?
- Responsibility to Protect as a Basis for ‘Judicial Humanitarian Intervention’
- Military Commanders as Bystanders to International Crimes: A Responsibility to Protect?
- Commentary: R2P as a Transforming and Transformative Concept in the Context of Responsibility as Liability
- Part VIII Concluding Observations
- Index
Responsibility to Protect as a Basis for ‘Judicial Humanitarian Intervention’
from Part VII - R2p and its Possible Impact on the Law of International Responsibility
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2018
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- List of Authors
- Introduction
- Part I The Moral Underpinnings and Political Ends of R2p
- Part II International Institutions And Their Role In R2p
- PART III De Facto Regimes and Non-State Actors Within a State And as a State
- Part IV R2p and Due Dilligence Regarding the Conduct of Corporations
- Part V The Interaction Between R2p And Humanitarian Law Obligations To Protect Civilian Populations
- PART VI R2p and International Criminal Law Beyond the Four R2p Crimes
- Part VII R2p and its Possible Impact on the Law of International Responsibility
- The ICJ Judgment in the Genocide Convention Case: Is R2P Drawing New Horizons for the Law on State Responsibility?
- Responsibility to Protect as a Basis for ‘Judicial Humanitarian Intervention’
- Military Commanders as Bystanders to International Crimes: A Responsibility to Protect?
- Commentary: R2P as a Transforming and Transformative Concept in the Context of Responsibility as Liability
- Part VIII Concluding Observations
- Index
Summary
INTRODUCTION: USING ‘JUDICIAL FORCE’ TO ENCOMPASS A MEANS TO AN END FOR R2P
The responsibility to protect (R2P) is undoubtedly one of the most topical, but also controversial, concepts in international law. One reason for this is that its conceptualisation and implementation require exigent legal concepts to be employed in a way that is different to their conventional use and definition. Examples of concepts pertaining to this include those of sovereignty and responsibility. The doctrine of state responsibility, which was gradually formulated by inter-state arbitration practices during the 18th and 19th centuries, refers to the breach of international law by a state as the basis of its liability. However, within the context of R2P, responsibility is not associated with liability. This responsibility is reshaped towards protection and is seen as a duty for states and, more generally, for the entire international community. As such, R2P is a nascent and intuitive concept resulting from necessity and sustained by the strong will of the international community (beyond states) as well as our own morality and ethics rather than state practice. It has a fairly broad scope of application aimed at human security and encompassing a ‘continuum of prevention, reaction and rebuilding, spanning from early warning to diplomatic pressure, and to coercive measures’.
R2P was first defined by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001. ICISS employed the language of ‘R2P’ instead of that of the ‘right of intervention’ with a view to re-characterising the concept of sovereignty ; thus, a concept that was formerly perceived as a tool for controlling citizens was then asserted as a responsibility to ensure their safety, protect their lives and promote their welfare. This conceptual change in thinking seems recent, but, in fact, was advanced by Deng decades earlier – although his focus was on the protection of internally displaced people and on international assistance to complement the incapacity of weak states. More recently, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon confirmed this understanding stating that ‘sovereignty confers responsibility, a responsibility to ensure protection of human beings from want, from war and from repression’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Beyond Responsibility to ProtectGenerating Change in International Law, pp. 367 - 392Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2016