Search

Begin New Search Topic Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Publication Year within 25 Years

71. R2P Monitor, Issue 43, 15 January 2019

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a bimonthly bulletin applying the Responsibility to Protect lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 43 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Myanmar (Burma), Syria, Yemen, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nicaragua, Nigeria, South Sudan and Venezuela.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Syria, Nigeria, Burundi, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Global Focus

72. “If Not Now, When?”: The Responsibility to Protect, the Fate of the Rohingya and the Future of Human Rights

Author:
Simon Adams
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
In this occasional paper from the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Dr. Simon Adams tests the resilience of the international community’s commitment to defending human rights and upholding its Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The paper highlights the failure to respond to patterns of discrimination that eventually led to a genocide in Myanmar (Burma) during 2017. But it also draws attention to other recent situations, such as in the Gambia, when the international community seized the moment to respond in a timely and decisive manner to an emerging threat of devastating conflict. In doing so, Adams emphasizes that even when bodies such as the UN Security Council appear paralyzed and inert, a mobilized international community can still act to prevent atrocities, protect vulnerable populations, and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Law, Ethnic Cleansing, International Community, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), UN Security Council, and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Asia, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar

73. An Evolving Legacy of Kosovo Intervention

Author:
Gorana Grgic
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
On 22 April 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered a speech dubbed the “Doctrine of the International Community” in front of the Chi- cago Economic Club.1 He seized on the escalating ethnic conflict in Kosovo and advocated for the international community’s military intervention in cases of grave abuses of human rights. Blair referred to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) then month-old mission in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force, as “a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on values.”2 Dictators such as Serbian president Slobodan Milošević should be dealt with sooner rather than later, he argued, as appeasement has proven to be an inef- fective strategy over the course of the twentieth century. Twenty years on, the question many ask on every anniversary of the Operation Allied Force is: “Was the intervention really worth it?”3 With each passing year, the answer becomes less decisive; today, Kosovo and Serbia remain in limbo, having faced security and political crises of different magnitudes, albeit never a full-scale return to arms. However, while fact-based critical examinations of past events are always welcome, it is equally important not to lose perspective of the broader shifts and trends in international affairs that made such an intervention uniquely possible in the late 1990s.
Topic:
NATO, Ethnic Conflict, Humanitarian Intervention, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Political Geography:
Kosovo and Balkans

74. Kosovo 20 Years On: Implications for International Order

Author:
Edward Newman and Gëzim Visoka
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Kosovo’s small size belies the major impact it has had on the evolving international order: the norms and institutions that shape the behavior and practices of states and other international actors. In three controversial policy ar- eas—humanitarian intervention, international peacebuilding, and international recognition—Kosovo has been the focus of events and debates with far-reaching and globally significant effects. This article will present and discuss these three subjects, and then conclude by considering how Kosovo’s future may continue to be tied to the shifting contours of international order in the context of renewed great power geopolitical rivalry. Kosovo was originally a province within the Yugoslav Republic of Serbia, but Serbia undermined its autonomy in 1989, after which Kosovo became a major flashpoint for instability and conflict within the West Balkans. Resistance within Kosovo and a heavy-handed Serbian response resulted in the NATO-led military intervention in 1999 aimed at ending persecution. This “illegal but legitimate” intervention occurred in the absence of UN Security Council ap- proval but had a significant degree of support, in particular from Western states.1 It subsequently paved the way for a broad reconsideration of when and how armed force may be used to stop or prevent egregious human rights abuses. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, which all UN member states agreed upon in 2005 to prevent or end atrocities, is a part of this legacy.2
Topic:
Ethnic Conflict, Geopolitics, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and International Order
Political Geography:
Kosovo and Balkans

75. Normative resistance to responsibility to protect in times of emerging multipolarity: the cases of Brazil and Russia

Author:
Anna Kotyashko, Laura Cristina Ferreira-Pereira, and Alena Vysotskaya Guedes Vieira
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
This article assesses the normative resistance to Responsibility to Protect adopted by Brazil and Russia against the backdrop of their international identities and self-assigned roles in a changing global order. Drawing upon the framework of Bloomsfield’s norm dynamics role spectrum, it argues that while the ambiguous Russian role regarding this principle represents an example of ‘norm antipreneurship’, particularities of Brazil’s resistance are better grasped by a new category left unaccounted for by this model, which this study portrays as ‘contesting entrepreneur’.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, United Nations, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), UN Security Council, and Normative Resistance
Political Geography:
Russia, Brazil, and Global Focus

76. TWAIL and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a New Instrument of Domination: the Case of Libya

Author:
Tuğçe Kelleci and Marella Bodur Ün
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) points to the interactions between international law and colonial legacy and problematizes the concepts of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) within this framework. Humanitarian intervention is usually discussed in relation to its legitimacy in international law and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. TWAIL, however, analyzes those interventions that are constructed through discourses of human rights and democracy, highlighting the importance of issues other than legality and legitimacy. A historical reading of the Libyan case through the prism of TWAIL not only provides us with an opportunity to assess TWAIL’s assumptions in relation to international law, humanitarian intervention and R2P but also reveals how international law and R2P are used to legitimize interventions of the West into the Third World.
Topic:
International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
Libya and North Africa

77. R2P Monitor, Issue 42, 15 November 2018

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a bimonthly bulletin applying the Responsibility to Protect lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 42 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Syria, Yemen, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nigeria, South Sudan and Venezuela.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria, Burundi, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Global Focus

78. R2P and Outcomes of the Human Rights Council’s 39th Session

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The 39th regular session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) was held in Geneva between 10 and 28 September 2018. As the primary international human rights body, the Human Rights Council has the capacity to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes, as systematic violations and abuses of human rights can be potential indicators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. The summary below highlights major outcomes and relevant dialogues from the 39th session as they relate to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from such crimes. As part of the session, the Netherlands delivered two statements on behalf of 49 members of the Group of Friends of R2P.
Topic:
International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocities, and UN Human Rights Council (HRC)
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Asia, South America, United Nations, Central America, and Global Focus

79. 2019-2021 UN Human Rights Council Elections and the Responsibility to Protect

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Today the UN General Assembly elected Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay to the Human Rights Council (HRC) for the 2019-2021 term. With the elections of Argentina, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy and Uruguay, 20 of the 47 Council members during 2019 are also members of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect in Geneva.
Topic:
Human Rights, Elections, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocities, and UN Human Rights Council (HRC)
Political Geography:
United Nations and Global Focus

80. R2P Monitor, Issue 41, 15 September 2018

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a bimonthly bulletin applying the Responsibility to Protect lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 41 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Syria, Yemen, Cameroon, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nicaragua, Nigeria and South Sudan.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Community, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Syria, Nigeria, Burundi, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, and Central African Republic