Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Responsibility to Protect and International Relations

Transcript

Responsibility to Protect and International Relations · Diplomacy and International Relations

• 0:00
  Welcome to Diplomacy and International Relations by
• 0:02
  Bastian Freiborg. Great to be here.
• 0:04
  And just a quick note before we start.
• 0:06
  This deep dive is generated with AI, but all the information
• 0:10
  we'll discuss today has been carefully verified using the
• 0:12
  sources provided. Absolutely.
• 0:14
  Solid sourcing is key. So this is the deep dive we take
• 0:18
  sources, articles, reports, research and well, we pull out
• 0:22
  the most important insights to help you get informed quickly
• 0:25
  and thoroughly. And today we're diving into a
• 0:27
  concept that has really stirred things up in international
• 0:31
  affairs. That's right, the responsibility
• 0:33
  to Protect, or R2P as it's usually called.
• 0:35
  Yeah, it's, it's right at that tricky intersection, doesn't it?
• 0:38
  International relations, international law, and you know
• 0:41
  the big one, state sovereignty. Definitely.
• 0:44
  We've got quite a range of sources here, academic articles,
• 0:47
  things from the European Journal of International Law.
• 0:50
  And reports too from groups like the Crisis Group and,
• 0:53
  importantly, the International Commission on Intervention and
• 0:56
  State Sovereignty, the ICIS. OK, so our mission today is
• 1:00
  really to unpack R2P. Where did this idea come from?
• 1:03
  You know, how does it wrestle with older ideas like
• 1:05
  sovereignty or even humanitarian intervention?
• 1:08
  And crucially, how has it actually played out?
• 1:11
  We need to look at the real world cases, the successes,
• 1:14
  sure, but also the failures. Yeah, and the, let's face it,
• 1:18
  the messy politics involved. Exactly, we'll explore how that
• 1:21
  post Cold War period, especially after some, well, horrific
• 1:25
  events in the 90s. Like Rwanda?
• 1:27
  Precisely how moral arguments started gaining more traction.
• 1:31
  Really challenging that old hands off approach.
• 1:33
  The non intervention principle. Which ultimately led to R2P and
• 1:37
  this idea of fundamentally rethinking sovereignty itself.
• 1:41
  OK, let's get into it. Well, the sources really
• 1:43
  stressed that the end of the Cold War was a pivot point.
• 1:46
  The ideological standoff was over, and suddenly there was
• 1:49
  more space for moral arguments. Human rights talk became much
• 1:54
  more prominent. Right, sparking these debates
• 1:56
  about, you know, how do you weigh human rights against
• 1:57
  traditional state interests? Non intervention versus doing
• 2:00
  something. Yeah, and thinkers like Michael
• 2:02
  Walser, his work on just and unjust wars, that became quite
• 2:07
  influential around that, people were grappling with these ideas.
• 2:10
  But I mean, even with this growing moral consciousness and
• 2:12
  existing international law, the 1990s were just brutal.
• 2:16
  They showed the system's limits, didn't they?
• 2:18
  Tragically, yes, mass atrocities unfolded and Rwanda in 94 is the
• 2:22
  well, the devastating example everyone points to in the
• 2:25
  sources. An estimated 1,000,000 Tutsis
• 2:28
  killed in three months. It's almost unimaginable and it
• 2:31
  just forced this question onto the international community.
• 2:33
  What should we have done? What could we have done?
• 2:36
  Exactly. That failure, that collective
• 2:38
  inaction, put immense pressure on the status quo.
• 2:42
  Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general of the time, he directly
• 2:46
  challenged everyone. He laid it out, didn't he?
• 2:47
  He did find a way, he said, to bridge this gap between the UN
• 2:52
  charters principle of non intervention.
• 2:53
  That's Article 2, paragraph four, and the absolute moral
• 2:56
  need to respond when states are committing mass atrocities
• 3:00
  against their own people. So how do you square that
• 3:02
  circle? Uphold sovereignty, but also
• 3:05
  protect people from their own governments?
• 3:06
  That was the challenge. And that's what led Canada to
• 3:09
  step up and establish the ICAS, the International Commission on
• 3:12
  Intervention and State Sovereignty, back in 2000.
• 3:16
  Right. Chaired by Gareth Evans and
• 3:18
  Mohammed Sanan, their big report came out in 2001.
• 3:21
  The responsibility to Protect trying to build a new consensus.
• 3:25
  And the core of it, the really groundbreaking part, was
• 3:27
  conceptual. It wasn't just tweaking the
• 3:29
  rules. It was rethinking the
• 3:32
  foundation. Instead of just sovereignty,
• 3:34
  meeting control of states right to do what it wants within its
• 3:36
  borders, they proposed a necessary recharacterization.
• 3:42
  OK, They talked about sovereignty as responsibility.
• 3:45
  This idea, partly inspired by Francis Dang's work on African
• 3:48
  conflicts, basically said being sovereign isn't just a right,
• 3:52
  it's a job a. Responsibility.
• 3:54
  Exactly. The primary responsibility to
• 3:56
  protect your population from the worst kinds of harm that lies
• 4:00
  with the state itself. It's fundamental to its
• 4:02
  legitimacy. That makes intuitive sense.
• 4:04
  The state's right there. It has the power, the local
• 4:07
  knowledge. But what if the state is the
• 4:09
  problem? What if it's the one doing the
• 4:11
  killing? Or it's just collapsed and can't
• 4:12
  protect anyone? That's the crucial second part
• 4:15
  of R2P. If a state is clearly unwilling
• 4:18
  or unable to stop the four specific atrocity crimes, we're
• 4:22
  talking genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes
• 4:25
  against humanity. The BIG4.
• 4:27
  Yes. If the state fails that basic
• 4:30
  duty, then RTP says a residual responsibility, a fall back
• 4:35
  duty, shifts to the wider international community.
• 4:38
  Ah, so that's where the non intervention principle might
• 4:40
  give way. In the specific extreme
• 4:42
  circumstances, yes, the international responsibility to
• 4:45
  protect can override non intervention according to the
• 4:48
  RTP doctrine. So it's not just about charging
• 4:51
  in, it's a structured approach. ICS Opera port laid out three
• 4:54
  pillars. It did very deliberately
• 4:56
  structured and they stressed the priority pillar, one the most
• 4:58
  important one, the responsibility to prevent.
• 5:00
  Stop it before it starts. Exactly.
• 5:03
  Address the root causes, the political tensions, economic
• 5:07
  despair, social divisions, all the things that can fuel mass
• 5:10
  violence. The sources really emphasize
• 5:13
  early warning, early action. Moving from just reacting to
• 5:17
  actually preventing right a. Culture of prevention is the
• 5:20
  phrase used integrating it into policy using tools like
• 5:24
  diplomacy, maybe incentives or even targeted coercion like
• 5:27
  sanctions early on. Prevention is ideal, obviously,
• 5:30
  but history shows us prevention doesn't always work.
• 5:33
  Crises happen. So pillar 2.
• 5:35
  Pillar 2 is the responsibility to react, responding when
• 5:39
  prevention has failed and atrocities are happening or
• 5:41
  imminent. And this can mean different
• 5:43
  things. A whole range.
• 5:44
  It starts with Pacific measures under Chapter 6 of the UN
• 5:47
  Charter. Mediation, diplomacy, maybe fact
• 5:50
  finding missions. OK, but if these are enough, it
• 5:52
  can escalate to coercive measures under Chapter 7.
• 5:55
  That could mean sanctions, arms embargoes.
• 5:57
  And potentially military force. As a last resort, yes, military
• 6:00
  intervention is possible under Pillar 2, but, and this is
• 6:03
  critical, only with the authorization of the UN Security
• 6:06
  Council. Always the Security Council, OK.
• 6:08
  And then there's a third pillar for after the immediate crisis.
• 6:11
  Yes, the responsibility to rebuild this is vital.
• 6:15
  You can't just intervene and leave.
• 6:17
  Rebuilding is about helping the society recover, reconstruct,
• 6:21
  reconcile. So things like security,
• 6:23
  justice. Exactly.
• 6:25
  Providing security, setting up accountability for past crime,
• 6:28
  supporting development, helping rebuild institutions so the
• 6:31
  state can actually exercise its responsibility responsibly going
• 6:34
  forward. It's about long term stability.
• 6:37
  OK, now this whole concept, especially Pillar 2, the
• 6:40
  potential for military intervention, it seems to run
• 6:43
  straight into that bedrock principle, state sovereignty.
• 6:46
  Yeah. Oh, absolutely.
• 6:47
  That's the central tension, state sovereignty going back to
• 6:50
  the peace of West Philly in 1648.
• 6:52
  Ideas from thinkers like Bodan and Hobbes.
• 6:55
  It's the foundation. Mutual recognition, non
• 6:57
  interference, the right to govern yourself.
• 6:59
  Right. Internal and external
• 7:01
  sovereignty. It's deeply embedded in
• 7:02
  international law. And the UN Charter itself,
• 7:05
  Article 24, seems to explicitly forbid using force against a
• 7:09
  state's territory or independence.
• 7:11
  How does R2P square that? This is where the legal
• 7:14
  mechanics get, well, quite detailed.
• 7:16
  Article 24 is there, yes, but then you have Article 2,
• 7:19
  paragraph 7. It says nothing in the Charter
• 7:22
  allows the UN to intervene in purely domestic matters unless
• 7:26
  unless the Security Council decides under Chapter 7 that the
• 7:29
  situation is actually a threat to international peace and
• 7:32
  security. So the Security Council can
• 7:34
  effectively define a domestic crisis as an international
• 7:37
  threat. Precisely if they make that
• 7:40
  determination under Chapter 7, they unlock significant powers.
• 7:44
  Article 42 specifically allows them to authorize military
• 7:47
  action if non military measures under Article 41 are judged
• 7:51
  inadequate. So breaching sovereignty can be
• 7:53
  lawful, but only if the Security Council, acting under Chapter 7,
• 7:57
  says so because the situation threatens wider peace.
• 8:00
  That's the legal pathway. It's why Sir Martin Gilbert was
• 8:03
  quoted in one source calling R2P the most significant adjustment
• 8:07
  to traditional sovereignty. It creates A conditional
• 8:09
  exception. OK, I see the legal logic.
• 8:11
  And is this why R2P advocates are usually careful to
• 8:14
  distinguish it from the older idea of humanitarian
• 8:17
  intervention? Yes, very much so.
• 8:19
  That term humanitarian intervention, was controversial,
• 8:23
  often seen as potentially justifying unilateral action
• 8:26
  focused on the interviewer's right to act.
• 8:28
  Whereas R2P is framed differently.
• 8:30
  It's framed around the responsibility owed to the
• 8:32
  population at risk. The focus is on the victims, and
• 8:36
  it's broader. Remember pillars one and three?
• 8:39
  Prevention and rebuilding, not just the reaction part.
• 8:42
  Right. It tries to move beyond that
• 8:43
  difficult debate, like the one after Kosovo in 99, where the
• 8:47
  intervention was called illegal but legitimate.
• 8:50
  RTP aimed for a clearer framework.
• 8:52
  Exactly. A framework anchored in the UN
• 8:54
  system, specifically the Security Council for any use of
• 8:57
  force. So the Security Council really
• 8:59
  holds the keys when it comes to RTP's most forceful element,
• 9:02
  Pillar 2. In practice, yes, they are the
• 9:04
  gatekeeper for authorizing force.
• 9:06
  UNSC Resolution 1674 back in 2006, formally reaffirmed the
• 9:11
  R2P principles from the 2005 World Summit.
• 9:14
  But the council itself, it's not just a neutral body applying
• 9:17
  rules, is it? There's politics involved, a lot
• 9:19
  of. Politics.
• 9:20
  That's the unavoidable reality and the source of constant
• 9:23
  criticism. The P5, The five permanent
• 9:26
  members, USUK, France, Russia, China, they each have a veto.
• 9:31
  Meaning any one of them can block action.
• 9:33
  Regardless of how bad the situation is or how clearly it
• 9:36
  meets the R2P criteria, critics argue this means P5 national
• 9:40
  interest often trump humanitarian concerns.
• 9:43
  R2P gets applied selectively or not at all, depending on the
• 9:47
  geopolitical calculus. And the sources mentioned the P5
• 9:50
  structure itself is seen as unrepresentative, especially of
• 9:52
  the Global South. That's another layer of
• 9:54
  criticism, yes, that their interests don't align with many
• 9:57
  other Member States. And getting authorization is one
• 9:59
  thing. Acting on it is another.
• 10:01
  You need the actual capability, right?
• 10:03
  Absolutely political, get you the resolution maybe, but then
• 10:06
  you need the means. Military assets, logistics.
• 10:09
  The hard power, but also diplomatic muscle, economic
• 10:13
  tools, soft power. And often there's a lack of
• 10:15
  will, even within regional groups.
• 10:17
  That's highlighted as a challenge, yes.
• 10:19
  Plus even when there is will and capability, UN missions, the
• 10:22
  typical vehicle for intervention, they could be
• 10:25
  incredibly slow to deploy. We're talking months sometimes
• 10:29
  when rapid action is needed. So let's look at the track
• 10:32
  record when we examine actual cases, how do these factors, the
• 10:36
  Council, the veto, political will, capacity, regional
• 10:40
  cooperation, how do they actually interact?
• 10:42
  What makes R2P intervention more likely?
• 10:45
  Well, looking across different cases, the sources suggest a
• 10:47
  couple of conditions seem key for the Security Council to
• 10:50
  actually implement R2P, especially the intervention
• 10:53
  aspect. OK, what are they?
• 10:54
  One, either the state involve doesn't actively obstruct the
• 10:59
  intervention, or if they do, there's enough political will
• 11:02
  usually from AP5 member or a strong coalition to push past
• 11:06
  that obstruction. And the second condition.
• 11:09
  Effective cooperation between regional players, Think the
• 11:11
  African Union, Ecos in West Africa, maybe the Arab League
• 11:15
  and the UN Security Council itself.
• 11:17
  That coordination seems vital. Can you get examples where
• 11:20
  things lined up relatively well? Molly and Cote d'Ivoire are
• 11:23
  often mentioned situations where either the government welcomed
• 11:26
  help or obstruction was overcome and regional bodies work pretty
• 11:29
  effectively with the UNSC and. Libya in 2011.
• 11:32
  That's often cited as the RTP case.
• 11:34
  It is there you had strong P5 interest, USUK France really
• 11:39
  pushed and crucial regional support from the Gulf
• 11:42
  Cooperation Council and the Arab League.
• 11:44
  That combination generated the political will for UNSC
• 11:47
  Resolution 1973, despite Gaddafi's resistance.
• 11:51
  But Libya also became controversial later, didn't it?
• 11:54
  Very much so. Russia, China, Brazil, South
• 11:56
  Africa. Others argued NATO overstepped
• 11:58
  the mandate, used R2P as a cover for regime change.
• 12:02
  That definitely created lasting distrust and made future
• 12:05
  consensus harder to achieve. OK, So what about the other
• 12:07
  side? Where have these conditions not
• 12:09
  been met, leading to less effective action or no action?
• 12:12
  We see the opposite pattern in places like the DRC, the Sudan,
• 12:15
  South Sudan, the Central African Republic.
• 12:17
  Often you had active government obstruction and crucially,
• 12:20
  cooperation between regional bodies like the AU and the
• 12:23
  Security Council was weak, sometimes even strained with
• 12:27
  resistance to council involvement.
• 12:29
  Which brings us right back to that core criticism,
• 12:31
  selectivity. Do these cases support the
• 12:35
  argument that R2P is applied based on P5 interests, not need?
• 12:39
  The high profile failures certainly fuel that argument
• 12:42
  powerfully. Siri is the most glaring
• 12:43
  example, isn't it? Absolutely a conflict raging
• 12:46
  since 2011. Horrific casualties, millions
• 12:49
  displaced. It seems like a textbook R2P
• 12:52
  situation on paper. The criteria are clearly met,
• 12:55
  yet the Security Council has been completely deadlocked.
• 12:57
  Vetoes primarily from Russia and China.
• 13:00
  Why? Great power politics,
• 13:02
  essentially. Russia and Iran backing Assad's
• 13:04
  government, the US and European powers backing opposition
• 13:07
  groups. Competing strategic interests
• 13:10
  just paralyzed the Council. R2P principles took a backseat.
• 13:13
  One source mentioned a specific Chinese calculation.
• 13:16
  Yes, Yan Kwai Tong's analysis suggests China's vetoes were
• 13:19
  influenced partly by their negative experience over Libya,
• 13:22
  feeling the mandate was abused, and also by their strategic
• 13:25
  alignment with Russia. And it's not just about these
• 13:27
  huge geopolitical clashes. That's right.
• 13:29
  What about Bahrain? That's another case critics
• 13:32
  point to drawing on Aidan Hagar's work.
• 13:34
  Allegations of serious abuses, potentially crimes against
• 13:36
  humanity, torture, unlawful imprisonment.
• 13:39
  Yet R2P hasn't really been invoked.
• 13:41
  And the argument is. That the strategic interests of
• 13:44
  key P5 members, namely the US and UK, things like arms sales,
• 13:49
  military training, relationships, the US Fifth
• 13:51
  Fleet being based there, have effectively shielded Bahrain
• 13:54
  from R2P scrutiny. It reinforces the perception
• 13:57
  that interests, not just atrocities, Dr. the agenda.
• 14:01
  OK, so Syria and Bahrain paint a pretty bleak picture of
• 14:04
  selectivity and paralysis, but was there ever a case where the
• 14:08
  international community did act quickly?
• 14:10
  Maybe more on the prevention side, embodying RTP principles
• 14:13
  effectively. The response to the post
• 14:15
  election violence in Kenya in 2072 thousand and eight is often
• 14:19
  held up as a more positive, albeit non military example.
• 14:22
  What happened there? There was serious ethnic
• 14:23
  violence, real fears of mass atrocities.
• 14:26
  The international response was notably swift and unified.
• 14:28
  The African Union took the lead Kofi and unmediated.
• 14:31
  Backed by the UN and others. Yes, supported by the Security
• 14:34
  Council, the EU key states it was seen as effective early
• 14:39
  diplomatic action, fitting within R2 PS prevention and
• 14:42
  early reaction ideas. The key, according to sources,
• 14:46
  was that regional and international actors move fast
• 14:49
  and together. So R2P isn't just about military
• 14:52
  force. That early unified diplomatic
• 14:55
  push made a difference in Kenya. It suggests that part of the
• 14:58
  framework can work when the conditions align, especially
• 15:01
  regional leadership and international consensus.
• 15:04
  So after looking at the origins, the framework, the legal debates
• 15:07
  and these challenging real world cases, where does that leave R2P
• 15:11
  now? What's the state of play?
• 15:14
  Well, the fundamental tension hasn't gone away.
• 15:16
  R2P tries to elevate human protection alongside
• 15:19
  sovereignty. It offers a framework for action
• 15:21
  when states fail catastrophically.
• 15:22
  But it has to operate in the real world, within the existing
• 15:25
  international system dominated by sovereign States and the
• 15:28
  Security Councils power politics.
• 15:30
  Exactly. So has it fundamentally changed
• 15:32
  things? Or is it, you know, a noble
• 15:34
  ideal often sidelined by cold, hard interests?
• 15:37
  What do the sources suggest? It seems to be a bit of both,
• 15:39
  really. Rhetorically, RTP is definitely
• 15:42
  shifted the conversation. There's now an established norm,
• 15:46
  a language about a state's responsibility to its people and
• 15:49
  the international community's role when that fails.
• 15:52
  So it's raised awareness, set a standard.
• 15:54
  Yes, but it's practical application, especially military
• 15:58
  intervention under Pillar 2 remains heavily dependent on
• 16:01
  political will within the Security Council, particularly
• 16:04
  the P5. That hasn't changed.
• 16:06
  And those challenges we talked about, the inconsistent will,
• 16:09
  the lack of rapid response capabilities, the clash between
• 16:12
  national interests and this idea of universal responsibility,
• 16:16
  they persist. Absolutely.
• 16:18
  They're ongoing obstacles. This whole push towards what
• 16:21
  some called practical morality in international relations with
• 16:24
  R2P is a prime example. It has real political
• 16:27
  consequences. It constantly redraws the lines
• 16:30
  between realism and moralism. Challenging those traditional
• 16:32
  state first views. Right.
• 16:34
  It's part of that ongoing evolution in how we think about
• 16:36
  international order and responsibility.
• 16:38
  OK, we've really dug into the responsibility to protect today
• 16:42
  in its origins, in the shadow of terrible failures.
• 16:45
  Explored its ambitious three pillar framework, trying to
• 16:49
  balance sovereignty with protection.
• 16:51
  And confronted the very real, very difficult challenges it
• 16:55
  faces when it meets international politics, great
• 16:57
  power dynamics and national interest.
• 17:00
  Yeah, it's an attempt to address humanity's worst impulses, but
• 17:04
  it's inevitably tangled up in the structures of international
• 17:07
  law and the often unpredictable power plays at the UN.
• 17:11
  And as we've discussed, its success seems so contingent on
• 17:14
  factors like regional support and, critically, that political
• 17:17
  alignment among the most powerful states, leading to
• 17:20
  these frustrating questions about selectivity.
• 17:23
  So here's something to think about.
• 17:25
  Does the crucial promise of R2P, the goal of preventing mass
• 17:28
  atrocities? Does that promise still hold
• 17:31
  weight despite the inconsistencies and the risks of
• 17:33
  its selective application? Or does that persistent gap, the
• 17:37
  one between the ideal R2P and the often disappointing reality,
• 17:41
  ultimately undermine its power to make a difference globally?
• 17:44
  A tough question, something to definitely keep in mind as you
• 17:47
  follow current events. Thank you for joining us for
• 17:49
  this deep dive. Yes, thank you.
• 17:51
  If you found this deep dive valuable, please do follow the
• 17:54
  podcast so you don't miss future episodes.
• 17:56
  And if you enjoyed our exploration today and maybe
• 17:58
  consider leaving a five star rating.
• 18:00
  Your support really helps us reach more people who want to be
• 18:03
  well informed.