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.
