By Valentina Conde Maldonado
The context in which the Responsibility to be protected (R2P ) arises is generally quite specific.The humanitarian crises of the 1990s and the United Nations’ inability to act, although they were present in the territories, put at the center of the discussion that the efforts made to maintain peace and security in the world were far from effective.
Precisely these failures are still considered the greatest errors of the United Nations and have opened the persistent debate on the effectiveness of the Organization.
The political commitment of the Responsibility to Protect was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit in order to address its four key concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The R2P has been subject of debate regarding its implementation (or better, its not implementation) in past and recent conflicts.
Responsibility to protect
Before discussing the new challenges that doctrine must face, it is important to consider that at the moment there are no suitable tools to ensure that the responsibility to protect becomes an integral element of the international system, with the ability to shape the actions of States, and non-state actors.
Resolution 794 of 1992, issued by the Security Council, was the starting point for considering human tragedies as a threat to world peace and stability. What makes this resolution a milestone was the support of the permanent member states of the Council.
The efforts made in the World Convention and in Resolution 1674 of 2006, which specifically refer to R2P as a measure to protect civilians in situations of armed conflict, whenever states are not really doing everything in their power to ensure a minimum of protection, and therefore a collective answers should be necessary.
The idea that there is a responsibility to react when a state refuses to take actions that fall within the scope of threats affecting the international community, whether with economic, political, legal or military measures, is present in article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations. In this regard, there are three notions: responsibilities to protection of the states, international assistance and capacity building, appropriate responses. This means two things: on the one hand, there is a need to protect people from crimes against humanity and, on the other, the fact that it is the states themselves that must protect and act in case of the passivity of others in this sense.
Errors in the application: the negative balance of R2P
While it is true that the Security Council has issued resolutions in which it explicitly refers to some of the principles of Responsibility to be protected, the truth is that the mandates that derive from these resolutions are, by far, ambiguous. This could be the result of two conditions currently inert in the international system. First, because the scenarios, in which the possible application of R2P can be considered, correspond to “New Wars”, in which the predominant actors are not totally states. Second, new needs and the strengthening of non-state actors impose additional burdens on a system designed for states. Consensus on how to deal with this type of problem is far, far away.
This is essential to understand why collective action is a constant ideal in the United Nations, but now it seems a utopia. US interventions after the 9/11 terrorist attacks are a signal that joint actions are possible, but that the United Nations system itself, particularly regarding the configuration of the Security Council, is unwilling to take direction full extend the mandates.
It is not only a matter of restoring the violated rights of millions of people suffering from conflicts, but also of establishing the necessary conditions to ensure that there is no repetition.
Although the importance of the responsibility to protect is recognized, the mere fact that its development takes place in bodies such as the Human Rights Council and not in the Security Council shows that the priorities of those who truly engage in this type of conflict , like the United States, are not concerned with acting under a banner that may not only be ineffective but also considered useless.
Prospective, the wasted potential of a geopolitical tool
Finally, it is important to consider that if there were a true development of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect by States within the framework of the United Nations system, it would have represented an opportunity to strengthen multilateralism, in a scenario where the loss of its importance mean the loss of some progress achieved.
For example, the withdrawal of the United States from the Human Rights Council inevitably sets the agenda’s priorities on new points. A particular case is the development of the Plan of the Century by Israel, the lack of responses by the UN and, in general, by the international community.
International internal armed conflicts and the fight against terrorism will not diminish, and for the time being they will not change of tactics either. The need to adapt to new scenarios is undeniable for an international community that has been overwhelmed by a diversity of complex situations, which are both long and wide.
The current crisis of COVID-19 accentuates all the other existing crises and in turn sharpens the debates on the current multilateral systems. Maintaining the spheres of influence will ultimately end up depending on the support of society in general about which struggles are worth fighting for, and that includes, the way in which crises seem to be addressed, they will always exist.
The maintaining of the spheres of influence will ultimately depend in general on the support of society about which struggles are worth fighting for, and in particular, about the way in which the crises, which will always exist, must be addressed.
Author: Valentina Conde Maldonado (Internationalist, Analyst of International Missions and Peace Operations, Research Assistant. Diploma in International Relations, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia).
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)