Enora Ledaguenel

1. R2P’s roots

This blog post will analyse the challenges that the R2P, and consequently the UN infrastructure, have to face nowadays. Since the UN is a gigantic organisation, I chose to focus on R2P, linked to the UNSC, as it focuses on current situations and helps me to distinguish my future career prospects.

The R2P resolution was ratified by state and government leaders in 2005 in response to 20th-century crimes such as the Rwanda genocide. Its goal is to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

Despite the entry into force of R2P in 2005, the world has still seen the horrific price paid by civilians on several occasions, such as in Syria. As a result, one uncertainty remains: is the R2P still relevant today? First, we will define R2P and go through its history. Then, as a case study, we will look at the study case of Syria and its detractors. Finally, we will discuss R2P’s relevancy in today’s world.

 

2. R2P’s history and its implementation

The first R2P General Assembly debate was held in 2009, during which UN members reaffirmed their commitment to the 2005 document. Following this, the General Assembly passed a resolution acknowledging the Secretary General’s report. The ratification of R2P on an international level was prompted by the need to make the ‘never again goal’ real.

To prevent these atrocities, an agreement had to be put in place at the international level. ICISS* introduced “R2P’s” innovative concept in 2001, which allowed North-South countries to establish political common ground for the first time. R2P was created as an answer to Yugoslavia’s violent and shocking end, and this international intervention finally ended the bloodshed in Bosnia (Roland Paris, 2014).

As Professor Evans explains, even when perpetrated wholly inside the borders of a single sovereign state, the fact that the world’s leaders and governments recognised that such crimes constitute a threat to international peace and security, was by all accounts a diplomatic triumph. The main arguments concern the notion of sovereignty, and when does one know when a state is failing its country.

Salamé explains in an interview (cf. hereinbelow) that sovereignty is not something that is inevitably obtained, but something that you must give back. The head of a state has to protect its people, if not, someone else will do so, that’s the international community’s role.’

(Some images are hard to watch in the video)

According to R2P, a country’s sovereignty includes the obligation to defend its citizens against such crimes. According to articles 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, it calls into question the conventional idea of sovereignty and establishes a framework that legitimises humanitarian action. The UN Secretary-General presented a report on R2P implementation in January 2009, outlining the three pillars of R2P: to prevent, to react, to rebuild.

If states fail to prevent or commit these crimes, and after all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted, it is the international community’s responsibility to intervene. The most argued pillar is the third since some interventions have been motivated by states’ self-interest. Sovereignty remained crucial, the deployment of military force reprehensible, and the responsibility to protect contested. R2P is now widely seen as problematic and in need of adjustment. However, the Global Centre for R2P reminds its detractors that R2P has been invoked in more than 80 UNSC resolutions, including thematic resolutions on genocide prevention or armed conflict prevention: ‘These resolutions, and their related preventive and – as a last resort – coercive measures, have demonstrated that collective action to protect civilians can be effective.’

Consequently, R2P’s idea was implemented and is today regarded as a new political standard by the IC– at least by Western countries — or as Josie Hornung (2015) wonders, as an Emerging Norm.

According to the UN, many people feel inclined to claim that R2P has failed because of the present intensity of crises throughout the world. Simultaneously, significant advancements in the resolution’s development for its full implementation paint a more hopeful picture. R2P illustrates the dilemma the UNSC is facing nowadays.

 

3. The UNSC

In a nutshell, Article 24 of the UN Charter entrusts the UNSC with the main responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security by “prompt and effective action.” Based in New York, it consists of 15 members, each of whom has one vote. All Member States are required by the Charter to carry out the Council’s decisions.

Since its establishment on October 24, 1945, at the same time as the UN, the Council has served as a forum for the expression of conflicting interests among major countries, as well as a source of international blockades and ruptures. However, amid a diplomatic impasse over Syria, it is difficult to call the UN’s primary body “quick” or “effective.”

 

4. Syria’s case study and the international critic of R2P

The Syrian case study illustrates the doctrine’s problematics, and by extension, the internal challenge the UN faces today. According to Evans (2020), the UN did not act in Syria in 2011 following NATO’s defeat in Libya in 2014. Several countries have accused NATO of using R2P as a pretext for regime change.

Indeed, some UNSC members declined to participate because Western powers had ‘overstepped the mark in Libya by turning a limited mandate to protect civilians into a crusade for regime change‘ prompted by the belief that they had been misled (Green, 2019). Consequently, the IC does not see the war in isolation, but rather in the framework of earlier conflicts.

Though the intervention in Libya was a defensible process, it produced a broad cloud of distrust over western humanitarian initiatives, which will continue to be a barrier to the R2P doctrine’s application elsewhere, as Chris Keeler points out. Even a resolution criticizing the regime’s abuses against defenseless populations received no majority support in the UNSC. South Africa, India, Brazil, and Lebanon abstained, indicating the UNSC’s substantial division, according to Keeler, while Russia and China used vetoes and were scolded by western countries. South Africa said that previous council texts “had been abused and implementation had gone far beyond mandates” and that the Council “should not be part of any hidden agenda for regime change.”

As the Syrian government became aware of their impunity, the situation swiftly escalated into a full-fledged civil war, which is still wreaking havoc today, Evans adds. In 2016, the UNSC failed to pass a draught resolution to establish a body to examine the use of chemical weapons.

For the twelfth time in the seven years of the Syrian crisis, Russia rejected it. Meanwhile, passivity in the face of escalating horrors in Syria prompted a completely different criticism of R2P, according to Gareth Evans: that it was a hollow philosophy that gave false hope to vulnerable communities.

Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin in February 2016 (Reuters)

This reflection on the question ‘has R2P failed Syria?’ by Pr. Jason Ralph (Professor in IR at Leeds University) gives a new way of understanding those issues.

The BRICS** unwillingness to accept the Syria resolution underscores the ideological divide that will stymie another international adoption of the R2P.

 

5. R2P challenges

Roland Paris, an R2P defender, believes that R2P has several problems that expose it to condemnation: “the more R2P is used as a justification for military action, the more likely it is to be discredited, but conversely, the same will hold true if R2P’s coercive powers go unused.” R2P has five major concerns, according to Paris:

• The mixed-motives problem: Humanitarian intervention’s legality is founded on its selfless purpose, yet self-interested governments are more likely to join in humanitarian intervention, casting doubt on its legitimacy.
• The counterfactual problem: it is unclear whether it will succeed because a massacre that would have occurred anyway must be supported by counterfactual arguments.
• The conspicuous harm problem: while the intervention’s advantages will not be obvious, its destructiveness and costs will be, making it more difficult to defend. Due to the declared objective of averting harm, the demolition calls again into doubt the R2P’s validity.
• The end-state problem: humanitarian action tends to go beyond preventing major crimes.
• The inconsistency problem: failure to interfere in all cases where mass atrocities are a threat leads to accusations of inconsistency, as nations fear causing more harm than good.

The essential difficulty is not a lack of political will or intervention mechanism, but rather that the strategic logic of this type of mission creates a severe conundrum.

On the one hand, due to the inconsistency problem, R2P is likely to be criticised as hollow if no action is made in the face of impending mass crimes. On the other, even if a preventative operation is initiated and succeeds in its basic purpose of preventing an atrocity, the cumulative consequences of the first four concerns would undoubtedly lead to scathing criticism.

Consequently, intervention would always be criticised, as R2P is either viewed as a pretext for military action or as an instrument of coercion that is never employed. This helps to understand why R2P’s involvement in Libya was both a success and a failure: the doctrine is imprisoned by its own logic.

Thus, if one does not participate in a fight of this magnitude, one will end up with Syria, but if one does intervene, one will end up with Libya. (Pr. Michael Ignatieff)

 

6. The five veto powers  

It is reasonable to suppose that the R2P resolution has become excessively unclear, opening the door to a range of eventualities, including the UNSC’s inability to establish a consensus, owing in part to the political interests of the UNSC’s five veto powers.

R2P is dominated by powerful nations, both economically and academically, therefore increasing the exposure of developing powers like the BRICS would increase R2P’s relevance and make it more feasible.

For example, in 2013, France proposed a law limiting veto use, arguing that “the five permanent members would voluntarily and collectively commit to refrain from using the veto when a mass atrocity has been established“. The above-mentioned problem of mixed motives would be addressed by this rule.

Moreover, the related ACT proposal***, which binds Council members when dealing with atrocity occurrences, will contribute to the democratisation of other UN members and make interventions fairer among UN members, rather than providing the veto states entire control.

Even though the future of R2P is dependent on the BRICS, D. Bosco does not anticipate emerging non-Western countries to “pull to carry” and actively preserve R2P as a worldwide standard. Even though the BRICS embraced the notion of R2P, Chris Keeler observes that they “unite around suspicion, undercutting western excitement.”

To summarize, the R2P is a laudable resolution that requires adaptation to remain viable in today’s world. As Pr. Paris points out, nations will continue to assess each crisis through the lens of their own interests and beliefs, considering what is doable and weighing the costs and rewards of action versus inaction.

To fulfil Ban Ki-promise moon’s as UN Secretary-General to translate R2P “from words to practical deeds,” UN member states should concentrate on identifying and operationalizing those aspects that have the potential to significantly alter how international society views and practices military intervention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first stage, according to Bellamy, is to eliminate moral hazards, construct multi-faceted engagement approaches that limit the inclination to focus solely on military solutions, and develop the doctrine and capacity needed for peacekeepers to better protect civilians once involved.

These criteria would improve R2P’s effectiveness in the world’s eyes, addressing both the end-state and inconsistency issues. It is described by Lord Ashdown as “a great moral goal that has up till now only financed practicality during the war.” (cf. first video)

Protecting people all around the world from crimes against humanity should be a top priority, but the international system’s framework is debatable, especially given today’s tense political climate.

 

Thus, since R2P is a UN resolution, we can ask questions about Syria’s future and which solutions the UN peacemakers present in Geneva could imagine solving those intrinsic issues.

 

7. Career prospects

The visit to the United Nations will help me to see and discover this great organization in person, as well as make me understand real-world situations in a more concrete and direct manner. Immersing in a surrounding as this one will give me a sense of the internal workings of this prestigious institution.

Since I aspire to become a peacemaker in international relations, meeting a UN specialist will give me a better understanding of choosing the correct academic path to achieve my goals. Additionally, the possibilities offered through diplomacy and peacebuilding are endless, this is why meeting official representatives and learning their background and personal experiences will surely guide my career prospects for the better.

Meeting those experts would also help me gain a better understanding of how the UNSC is seen from Geneva and what remedies may be applied to reform the UN as a whole to make it more effective.

Consequently, this visit will help me build a bridge between my studies and the realities of this profession. Therefore, this meeting and discovery at the heart of the United Nations Institution will help me to refine my future career choices.

words count: 2201 words

*ICCISS: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

**BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

***ACT proposal: Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency

 

Bibliography