http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
(read carefully)
in particular: Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect
Pillar I: The
protection responsibilities of the state. This stresses that states
have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Pillar
II: International assistance and capacity-building. This addresses
the international community's commitment to help states build
capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and to help those
under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Pillar
III: Timely and decisive response. This focuses on the responsibility
of international community to act in a timely and decisive way to
prevent and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity when a state manifestly fails to protect its
population.
and
The ICISS
(International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty)
argued that any form of military intervention is "an exceptional
and extraordinary measure", and, as such, to be justified it
must meet certain criteria, including:
- Just cause: There must be "serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur".
- Right intention: The main intention of the military action must be to prevent human suffering.
- Last resort: Every other measure besides military invention has to have already been taken into account. (This does not mean that every measurement has to have been applied and been shown to fail, but that there are reasonable grounds to believe that only military action would work in that situation.)
- Proportional means: The military means must not exceed what is necessary "to secure the defined human protection objective".
- Reasonable prospects: The chance of success must be reasonably high, and it must be unlikely that the consequences of the military intervention would be worse than the consequences without the intervention.
- Right authority: The military action has to have been authorized by the Security Council.
Various
experts have highlighted some of the problems that military
intervention for humanitarian purposes may involve:
The
mixed-motives problem
- The legitimacy of R2P rests upon its altruistic aim. However,
states will often be wary to engage in humanitarian intervention
unless the intervention is partly rooted in self-interest. The
appearance that the intervention is not strictly altruistic
consequently leads some to question its legitimacy.
- The counterfactual problem - When R2P is successful, there will not be any clear-cut evidence of its success: a mass atrocity that did not occur but would have occurred without intervention. Defenders of R2P consequently have to rely on counterfactual arguments.
- The conspicuous harm problem - While the benefits of the intervention will not be clearly visible, the destructiveness and costs of the intervention will be visible. This makes it more difficult for proponents of the intervention to defend the intervention. The destruction caused by the intervention also makes some question the legitimacy of the intervention due to the stated purpose of preventing harm.
- The end-state problem - Humanitarian intervention is prone to expand the mission beyond simply averting mass atrocities. When successful at averting mass atrocities, the intervenors will often be forced to take upon themselves more expansive mandates to ensure that threatened populations will be safe after the intervenors leave.
- The inconsistency problem - Due to the aforementioned problems, in addition to the belief that a particular military action is likely to cause more harm than good, states may fail to act in situations where mass atrocities loom. The failure to intervene in any and all situations where there is a risk of mass atrocities lead to charges of inconsistency.
See also
praise and criticism of R2P
So
in any discussion about using military force as part of an attempt at
humanitarian intervention in order to prevent genocide and human
rights abuses, there are a series of issues to be examined. First,
there is the question of legitimacy. Is what is happening sufficient
cause to infringe a state's sovereignty under Pillar III? Is there a
clear mandate from the UN Security Council? If there is not, should
countries act without it if there is widespread support in the UN
General Assembly? Then there is the bigger question of effectiveness.
Do such missions usually achieve their basic goal of bringing peace
and stability and ending the violence, or do they lead to more
violence? Is the mission welcomed by the local people involved?
(Compare for example: Somalia UNOSOM I and II 1992-5, Afghanistan
ISAF 2001-present, and Libya military intervention 2011) Moreover,
would the funds used for such a mission be better spent elsewhere as
direct aid on a more concrete problem? (e.g. on providing food,
water, medicine and shelter to an area not requiring a military
presence). There is another important consideration that is often
raised. Many experts argue that since the foundation of the UN
humanitarian, intervention has always been 'politicized'. What
exactly the international community should do in response to the
situation in Syria, for example, cannot be debated 'neutrally',
simply as a humanitarian crisis. Each member state on the UNSC and
inthe UNGA will inevitably bring to the discussion its own economic
and strategic interests, and its own cultural or ideological
perspective. In international relations this is the normal context in
which a diplomatic discussion of a question like that of Syria takes
place.
In
order to respond to a question like:
What
are the main factors to be weighed when the international community
is considering military intervention in response to a humanitarian
crisis?
you
will probably need to look at these sources again and think about the
points raised (concerning the idea that for the international
community there is a responsibility to protect civilians from massive
human rights abuses by their own government which may override the
principle of state sovereignty) in
relation to
past and present humanitarian crises and intervention or
non-intervention by the international
community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
You
should also look at an article in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014,
by Erica Cheneweth and Maria J. Stephan called: Drop
Your weapons
This
argues against armed resistance and for civil resistance on a
statistical basis, claiming that the latter is more likely to produce
positive change. It is then argued that this means there is a greater
responsibility for the international community to ‘assist’ (civil
protest and civil resistance against a dictatorship) rather than to
embrace the responsibility to protect principle.
For
a wider discussion of this and related issues, see:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/Valentino%20-%20True%20Costs%20of%20Humanitarian%20Intervention.pdf
Libya
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/libya/report-libya/
Syria
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/
CAR
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/02/18/how-the-international-community-failed-the-central-african-republic/?utm_term=.08f891c56e29
South
Sudan
http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/humanrights/snowball/the-failure-of-un-intervention-in-south-sudan/
Somalia
current
mission:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/africa/somalia/report-somalia/
Rwanda
Afghanistan
Important
conclusion:
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.