Self-assessment exercise: R2P
Activity: Responsibility To Protect (R2P) – promise and reality
In the video lecture in the previous item, Prof. Petrasek argues that we should be skeptical of R2P because it allows states to intervene to protect human rights without UN authorization. In the two readings which follow, Kenneth Roth and Gareth Evans agree there are risks but make several counter-arguments.
Instructions: Which of the following 4 statements are among these counter-arguments?
1. The risks of R2P being misused by powerful states are minimal because R2P includes strict criteria for resorting to force including a high threshold of human rights abuse, proportionality and last resort.
Answer: Is this one of Roth or Evans’ counter-arguments?
Yes. These and other criteria are cited, and the original R2P doctrine proposed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) did argue these criteria must be met before force could be used.
2. R2P is not just about military force, it includes a responsibility to take a variety of other measures to prevent or put a stop to mass atrocities, and because of this R2P is different from the old doctrines of “humanitarian intervention”.
Answer:Is this one of Roth or Evans’ counter-arguments?
Yes. Evans argues this point explicitly, and it is true that as proposed by ICISS R2P includes a responsibility to try diplomatic and other means first.
3. States will always include some calculation of self-interest in decisions to use force – but this should not mean we oppose their action if their intervention would save civilian lives.
Answer:Is this one of Roth or Evans’ counter-arguments?
Yes, Roth argues this point explicitly – a “tainted humanitarian intervention” is better than the “supposed purity” of inaction and “indifference”.
4. The United Nations cannot be trusted to make the right decisions regarding the protection of civilians, so we need to rely on the United States acting without UN authority.
Answer:Is this one of Roth or Evans’ counter-arguments?
No. Neither raises this point.