Video 6.1: The Origins of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) (08:22)

Loading...

From the course by University of Manchester

Global Health and Humanitarianism

68 ratings

Explore Related Videos

At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you

University of Manchester

Global Health and Humanitarianism

68 ratings

Welcome to the Global Health and Humanitarianism MOOC. We are delighted to have you with us, and hope that the next six weeks will provide an interesting and thoughtful experience for you. We hope the course will give you an overview of global health and humanitarianism in theory and in practice. These fields overlap, and are connected, in many significant ways. However, we have used three key themes to explore our subjects: each key theme will be discussed over two week blocks by specialist course lecturers, and supported by unique video perspectives by three keynote speakers who are leading specialists in the field. - Weeks 1 & 2: An Introduction to Global Health Dr Amy Hughes MBE; - Weeks 3 & 4: Humanitarian Responses and Dilemmas Dr Tim Jacoby; - Weeks 5 & 6: The Right to Humanitarian Assistance and the Responsibility to Protect Dr Kirsten Howarth. To get the best out of the course we encourage you to try and set aside a few hours each week. This will give you time to work through videos, written materials and linked resources, and to get involved with discussion with other learners. We have provided a variety of different readings, resources and suggested activity based on the course content. Some will be essential to your understanding of the MOOC themes, and to assessment (if you have chosen to take part in assessment activity). Others will be for those of you who want to discover more about a particular subject or perspective, or to make your own study of global health or humanitarianism in action. Check through the weekly resources and content to find out which best suit your needs. During the course we will look at a range of different opinions and debates, linked to key themes and addressing ethics and moral issues. We hope you will be inspired and encouraged to explore and share your own perspectives, and those of others, throughout the course. Different viewpoints are essential to understanding global health and humanitarian practice. We hope you enjoy the next six weeks finding out about Global Health and Humanitarianism, and look forward to hearing from you on the discussion boards.

From the lesson

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Moving on from last week, where we examined the right to humanitarian assistance and the obstacles and challenges surrounding its practice, this week we explore another controversial issue within humanitarianism: the responsibility to protect, or more commonly known as R2P.

Video 6.1: The Origins of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) (08:22)8:22

Video 6.2: Development and Controversies of R2P (06:01)6:01

Video 6.3: Challenges to R2P (10:38)10:38

Video 6.4: Exploring challenges to R2P (07:36)7:36

Meet the Instructors

Prof Tim Jacoby
Professor
Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute & The Global Development Institute
Dr Amy Hughes
Clinical Academic Lecturer in Emergency Response
Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute
Dr Kirsten Howarth
Lecturer in Humanitarianism and Conflict Response
Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute

Welcome to week six, the responsibility to protect.

Moving on from the previous section, we'll examine the right to

humanitarian assistance and the obstacles and challenges surrounding its practice.

This session will explore another controversial issue within

humanitarianism, the responsibility to protect or more commonly known as R2P.

The principle of R2P recognizes

not only the need for states to protect their own citizens from genocide and

other mass atrocities, it also stipulates that if states aren't able to do so,

then the international community will step in and

provide the much needed protection and humanitarian assistance to those in need.

Since it's adoption by UN members in 2005, the practice of R2P has suffered for

inconsistent use to a varieties that situations around the world.

It has raised concerns regarding undermining national sovereignty with some

also questioning the real motivations behind R2P Interventions.

This session will explore the concept in more depth, charting it's rise from 2001,

and shedding light on some of the main challenges it faces.

It is hoped that by the end of this session,

you will have a clear understanding of the origins and

tenants behind the doctrine of R2P and have a better understanding

of the criticisms related to R2P in terms of its meaning and use.

With the end of the Cold War the international community witness situations

with great humanitarian suffering.

Civilian population is in fragile and conflict affected states all over

the world would being subjective to mass violence.

For example, in 1991 clan warfare broke out in Somalia.

This have far reached in humanitarian consequences displacing, wounding and

killing thousands of civilians.

As the extent of human suffering became physical to all, the security council of

the United Nations passed a number of resolutions guaranteeing the safe passage

of humanitarian assistance within the country these missions were undertaken

by United Nations peacekeepers led by the United States.

Yet, the humanitarian mission was compromised as the US military became

involved in the conflict by attempting to oust a known Somali warlord.

The outcome of this action led to the infamous incident where Somali militia

shot down two black hawk helicopters in Mogadishu killing 18 US soldiers.

In 1991, conflict in the Balkans caused widespread human suffering.

International response to the crisis was limited.

The UN deployed peace keepers in 1992.

But did not authorize or equip them to end the violence until 1995.

During this time, over 100,000 had died.

In 1994, ethnic tension between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda led to genocide.

Between April and June, around 800,000 Rwandans were killed,

most of whom were [INAUDIBLE].

International involvement to cease the genocide was practically nonexistent.

And the interventions that did occur were far too late to halt the mass slaughter.

The UN peacekeepers that were stationed in the country at the time stood by powerless

to stop the genocide, as they were only authorized to evacuate foreigners.

Even the former colonial power, Belgium,

pulled all its troops out when ten of their commanders were killed.

In 1999, NATO undertook a six-week bombing campaign against Serbia.

This was in response to the alleged atrocities.

Government forces had begun to commit in the province of Kosovo.

The motive behind NATOs bombing campaign was to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

The forcible explosion of Kosovo's majority Albanian community by said

forces.

This intervention has been dubbed the first humanitarian war But

it was controversial because it was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

As a result, it become called an illegal but legitimate intervention

NATO's unsanctioned intervention in Kosovo combined with the checkered recent

history of interventions or lack of intervention in Somalia, Rwanda and

Bosnia sparked international debate on whether there is a right to intervene

in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation.

When mass human atrocities are being committed.

In the United Nations, the secretary general at that time,

Kofi Annan launched debate on the matter.

Annan challenged member states to reach consensus on reconciling concerns

over state sovereignty along side the need to uphold human rights and

humanitarian norms.

If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty,

how should we respond to Rwanda, to a gross and systematic

violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity.

It was Canadian's sponsored International Commission

on International State Sovereignty that under took the job of investigating

what the response should be to crimes against humanity.

In 2001, the commission published a landmark document called

The Responsibility To Protect

the commission based its proposal on the idea of there being a responsibility to

protect rather than there being a right to intervene.

The report maintained that the responsibility to protect

rest firmly with the state to protect its own citizens.

In cases where it unable to protect its own citizens

responsibility then rests within the international community.

The report clearly states that the point at which intervention by the international

community in the name R2P is considered legitimate.

Major harm to civilians is occurring or imminently apprehended, and the state in

question is unable, or unwilling to end the harm, or is itself the perpetrator.

The report broke down the R2P into three aspects.

The responsibility to prevent that the state has primary responsibility to

prevent domestic tensions from escalating, which requires putting in place effective

early warning systems and implementing measures that tackle the root causes and

direct causes of informal conflict and

other man-made crises that places populations at risk.

The responsibility to react, that in cases where the state is either unwilling or

incapable to protect its own citizens,

the responsibility lies with the international community.

In responding, the international community will adopt appropriate measures ranging

from sanctions, international prosecutions to military intervention and

the responsibility to rebuild.

That in the aftermath of conflict the intervening powers

would continue their support in aiding recovery and reconciliation.

The report put forward the idea of responsibility as being one of protection

rather than intervention.

In the same manner, the report re-framed the notion of sovereignty.

Conceptualizing it not only as a right but also responsibility.

The responsibility of a state to provide protection to its people.

This reflects an expansion of the definition of sovereignty,

from one of control to one of responsibility.

Most importantly the report shifted focus onto the needs of people at risk

rather than focusing on the interests of the interveners.

Explore our Catalog

Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.

Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play