Authored By: Nowrin Jahan Borna
Gopalganj Science and Technology University
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), endorsed by the United Nations in 2005, represents a significant normative shift in international law by reconceptualizing state sovereignty as a responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This article examines the legal and practical tensions between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention, highlighting how R2P challenges the traditional Westphalian model. Drawing on case studies including Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Ethiopia, it analyses the limitations of R2P in practice, including Security Council politics, selective enforcement, and accountability gaps. The study argues that while R2P strengthens the normative imperative to safeguard human rights, its effectiveness is constrained by political and legal obstacles. It concludes by exploring possible avenues for reconciling sovereignty with humanitarian obligations, such as clearer intervention criteria, regional cooperation under UN guidance, and strengthened international legal mechanisms, offering a pathway toward more consistent and accountable application of R2P.
Introduction:
The rise of human rights norms has challenged the concept of state sovereignty in international law.1 The classical notion of sovereignty has been used as a shield against intervention by other states, but when states are unwilling or unable to protect their people against mass atrocities, the concept has proven insufficient. In this respect, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted by the United Nations in 2005, attempts to redefine sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right, thus trying to find a balance between non-intervention and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.2 Notwithstanding its normative attributes, R2P has been legally questioned. The lack of a specific legal norm on humanitarian intervention has still not been remedied, as evidenced by the cases of Kosovo and Syria, in which states have failed to send a consistent legal message on the use of force. 3The scholarly efforts to describe such interventions as “illegal but legitimate” are significant, because they indicate a degree of ambiguity, especially with regard to exceptions to the use of force, which are still not supported by the regime of state responsibility. 4The conflicts in Syria, Myanmar, Libya, and Ukraine indicate that political difficulties, lack of agreement in the Security Council, and certain indefiniteness of law still impede a balance between sovereignty and the protection of human rights.
Historical and Legal Background
Traditional notions of state sovereignty reflect this Westphalian system, where the notions of territorial integrity and political independence became synonymous with the non-interference in a state’s domestic affairs. 5Before the development of R2P, humanitarian intervention did not have a legal framework. Mass atrocities, such as the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 showed that strict non-intervention becomes catastrophic, but the international community could not take the step to firmly establish a legal right to humanitarian intervention. 6The action by NATO in Kosovo in 1999 enhanced this controversy.7 The use of force was without explicit authorization from the Security Council and was considered politically justifiable despite being legally dubious. In response to these failures, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was advanced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty and later supported by the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit.8 R2P’s most important normative shift has been its redefinition of sovereignty in terms of a responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. While it is underpinned by established norms of international law-particularly human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the collective security framework of the UN Charter ,the exact legal status and enforceability of R2P remain contested.
Legal Framework of the Responsibility to Protect:
Key principles of R2P:
“Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) is founded on three foundational tenets: prevention, reaction, and rebuild. 9The proactive side of the Responsibility to Protect focuses on ensuring that states themselves safeguard their citizens via adherence to human rights law, with the initial step being engaging with the international community. Meanwhile, the reactive side of R2P allows for “collective security action” should a state clearly fail to safeguard its citizens, with military intervention universally left as a last resort. Finally, rebuild focuses on “post-conflict reconstruction efforts.”
Relation to UN Charter, especially Articles 2(4) and 7, and Security Council mandates:
R2P is framed in the context of the UN Charter, specifically in Articles 2(4) and 2(7), where the use of force is forbidden and non-interference in the domestic affairs of states is guaranteed. 10Contrary to establishing a novel right of humanitarian intervention, R2P falls back on Security Council authorization through Chapter VII of the UN Charter in maintaining international peace and security. This makes R2P vulnerable to political impasse.
International law controversies:
One of the major legal issues that remain contentious in R2P is the issue of the difference between legality and legitimacy. Though some intervention activities are regarded as morally valid, their lack of authorization by the Security Council tends to render them inconclusive in terms of positive international law. This debate among scholars in terms of “illegal but legitimate” intervention reflects the current ambiguity in state responsibility regulations that do not regard humanitarian need as valid force intervention.11
State Sovereignty and Human Rights:
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) squarely challenges the classic understanding of absolute sovereignty by correlating state power with the responsibility to protect populations against mass atrocity crimes. In so far as responsibility to protect is concerned, sovereignty is no longer to be viewed as a shield protecting states from interference by external actors; instead, it depends on states’ compliance with their primary responsibility for human rights in international law. A state that fails to meet that responsibility triggers R2P, which allows international intervention, thus tempering the exclusivity of sovereignty. This shift in understanding the concept of sovereignty has triggered a significant debate between sovereignty as responsibility and sovereignty as control.12 While supporters of R2P underline that sovereignty involves responsibility for the people, and that it is justifiable to intervene if such responsibility is not fulfilled, opponents of the concept assert that sovereignty is still a tenet of political independence. These practices indicate an opposition to R2P, especially among states that emphasize the policy of non interference. Such states include China and Russia, who through the use of sovereignty, must oppose any authorization by the Security Council for the use of forceful intervention, such as in Syria and Myanmar. Again, states dealing with conflicts within their borders often do not accept R2P-based oversight as efforts to interfere with their internal affairs, despite challenges aimed at protecting human rights.
Contemporary Legal Challenges:
The application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) continues to face significant legal and political obstacles. 13This is through the influence of the veto power wielded by permanent members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, in matters such as Syria and Ukraine. Additionally, selective intervention has undermined the legitimacy of R2P with concerns of double standards emanating from this inconsistency in the application of humanitarian crises. Accountability questions remain, linked to a lack of clarity on who is responsible for determining the application of intervention in a given situation. Moreover, issues of the application of R2P continue, including the relevant relationship between the use of force and other soft methods like diplomacy, sanctions, and humanitarian support.
Case Studies:
The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar is a relevant example of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) challenge. Violence directed at the Rohingya, including crimes that have been determined to be crimes against humanity or potentially genocide by United Nations bodies, clearly suggested that R2P principles were pertinent. Notwithstanding considerable evidence of violence and a clear lack of responsible protection by the state, the international community generally chose not to employ forceful means to protect the people of Myanmar. A strong emphasis on sovereignty principles, especially among key nations such as China and Russia, clearly impeded more effective actions on the part of the United Nations Security Council in this situation, highlighting challenges related to the effective application of R2P principles.14
In the Ukrainian situation, the application of R2P has taken a more indirect form. The humanitarian implications of the conflict, such as loss of life, displacement, and purported war crimes, have led a number of states and international institutions to couch their reaction to the situation in terms of R2P, primarily with regard to protecting civilians. However, military intervention on the basis of R2P is not currently being entertained, at least in significant part due to the presence of a permanent Security Council member and the strictures of the UN Charter. The situation in Ukraine illustrates the role of R2P in shaping political or humanitarian reactions such as sanctions, investigations, or humanitarian relief without necessarily affecting the UNGA’s legal ban on the use of force.15
In the situation in Ethiopia ,the situation highlights the challenge of applying R2P with regard to sovereignty. There were reports of mass atrocities and humanitarian blockage, prompting the international community to make calls for intervention consistent with R2P. This situation is one where the application of R2P is fraught with challenges, given that sovereignty is still a persuasive argument. It is important to note that the international community could not take direct action, given that there was no Security Council resolution that could provide a mandate for intervention. Taken together, these individual cases make it clear that R2P, while it has altered the debate about sovereignty and human rights, is currently limited by political factors and the preexisting strength of sovereignty in international law.16
Balancing Sovereignty and Human Rights:
In order to ensure an effective reconciliation between state sovereignty and the safeguarding of human rights, it is important that the legal framework surrounding Responsibility to Protect (R2P) be strengthened. One such way of achieving this is by beefing up the international legal framework so that selective dispensation is limited. This requires more consistency from the Security Council, more transparency in the decision-making process, and more cooperation with international judicial institutions to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes regardless of political expediency. A second course of action would be to support regional interventions with the guidance of the United Nations. This is because regional bodies like the African Union or European Union often have better context-specific information, which allows for more adequate responses to emerging crises. At the same time, such interventions would still address issues of unilateralism. Finally, it is important to ensure that the substantive and procedural standards of intervention are clearly spelled out to reduce any potential for abuse of R2P. Improved standards for gravity of harm, for example, through the measures of proportionality or reasonable prospects of success, could ensure that R2P does not end up serving political agendas or is exploited for personal gain. All the above efforts would work to improve the credibility of R2P without undermining the principles of sovereignty or international law.
Conclusion:
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has completely transformed the debate about state sovereignty and its definition from a right to a responsibility for protecting populations. While the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine provides a guiding framework for the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, it still remains limited by political, legal, and institutional realities in its implementation through the veto power of state sovereignty held by the United Nations Security Council in their selective intervention policies, as seen in various conflicts in states such as Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Ethiopia. These incident cases illustrate both the strength and the weakness of R2P. It has reaffirmed the normative need to protect populations, but it has failed to clarify the conflict between sovereignty and human rights. This is often the result of uncertainty about the law of R2P, as well as geopolitical factors that make states resistant to its implementation. Future trends in international law could gain momentum by focusing on improving collective decision-making, defining the criteria of intervention, and encouraging regional cooperation with United Nations oversight. In this respect, by improving legal clarity, accountability, and consistency, the global community would be better equipped to reconcile the respect for state sovereignty with the responsibility for protecting core human rights, thus developing the ideal objectives of R2P despite current challenges.
Bibliography
Books
Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (8th ed, OUP 2012).
Cassese A, International Law (2nd ed, OUP 2005).
Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (CUP 2013).
Deng FM, Kimaro S, Lyons T, Rothchild D and Zartman IW, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa (Brookings Institution Press 1996).
Evans G, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Brookings Institution Press 2008).
Gray C, International Law and the Use of Force (4th ed, OUP 2018).
Krasner SD, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton University Press 1999).
Thakur R, The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws and the Use of Force in International Politics (Routledge 2011).
Journal Articles
Bellamy AJ, ‘The Responsibility to Protect Five Years On’ (2010) 24 Ethics & International Affairs 143.
Bellamy AJ, ‘Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm’ (2011) 25 Ethics & International Affairs 263.
Cassese A, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures?’ (2001) 10 European Journal of International Law 23.
Peters A, ‘Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 513.
Simma B, ‘NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects’ (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 1.
Stahn C, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?’ (2007) 101 American Journal of International Law 99.
Stahn C, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and the Law of State Responsibility’ (2021) 32 European Journal of International Law 649.
Tladi D, ‘The Ukraine Crisis and the Responsibility to Protect’ (2022) Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies.
UN Documents and Reports
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (IDRC 2001).
UN General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (24 October 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/1.
UN Secretary-General, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (12 January 2009) UN Doc A/63/677.
UN Security Council, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda (15 December 1999).
UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (2018).
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Tigray (2021).
UN Resolutions
UNSC Res 1244 (10 June 1999) (Kosovo).
UNSC Res 1674 (28 April 2006).
UNSC Res 1973 (17 March 2011) (Libya).
UNGA Res ES-11/1 (2 March 2022) (Ukraine).
International Law Instruments
Charter of the United Nations (1945).
International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).
1Stephen D Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton University Press 1999).
2 UN General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (24 October 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/1, paras 138–139.
3 Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force (4th ed, Oxford University Press 2018).
4 Antonio Cassese, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures?’ (2001) 10 European Journal of International Law 23.
5Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (8th ed, Oxford University Press 2012).
6 UN Security Council, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda (15 December 1999).
7Bruno Simma, ‘NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects’ (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 1
8International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (IDRC 2001) 9 UN Secretary-General, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (12 January 2009) UN Doc A/63/677.
10 Charter of the United Nations arts 2(4), 2(7) and ch VII
11 International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).
12 Francis M Deng and others, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa (Brookings Institution Press 1996).
13 Alex J Bellamy, ‘The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On’ (2010) 24 Ethics & International Affairs 143.
14 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (2018).
15 N General Assembly Res ES-11/1 (2 March 2022).
16 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Tigray (2021).
