The Responsibility to Protect
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| Author | Jennifer Welsh,Carolin Thielking,S. Neil Macfarlane |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200205700401 |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
JENNIFER
WELSH,
CAROLIN
THIELKING
&
S.
NEIL
MACFARLANE
The
responsibility
to
protect
Assessing
the
report
of
the
International
Commission
on
Intervention
and
State
Sovereignty
...
ifhumanitarian
intervention
is,
indeed,
an
unacceptable
assault
on
sovereignty,
how
should
we
respond
to
a
Rwanda,
to
a
Srebrenica
-
to gross
and
systematic
violations
ofhuman
rights
that
affect
every
precept
of
our
common
humanity?
Kofi
Annan'
THE
CONTROVERSIAL
PRINCIPLE
OF
NON-INTERVENTION
is
much
older
than
the
United
Nations
system
that
enshrines
it.
Indeed, debates
about
the
extent
and
limits
of
state
sovereignty
have
been
an
integral
part
of
the
evolution
of
modern international
society
since
the
Treaty
of
Westphalia
in
1648.2
Since
1945,
the
debate
has
focused
on the
alleged
incompatibility
of
two
principles
of
the
United Nations
sys-
tem:
sovereign
equality
and human
rights.
The
former,
enshrined
in
articles
2(1),
2(4)
and
2(7),
suggests
that
states
should
enjoy
sovereign
equality
-
defined
internally
as
exclusive
jurisdiction
within
a
territory
and
Jennifer
Welsh
is
University Lecturer
in
International
Relations
at
the
University
of
Oxfird
and
a
Fellow
ofSomerville
College.
Carolin
Thielking
is
a
doctoralstudent
in
International
Relations
at
Oxford.
S.
Neil
MacFarlane
is
the
Lester
B.
Pearson
Professor
oflnternational
Relations
at
Oxford
and
the
Director
of
the
Centre
for
International
Studies. The
authors
would
like
to
thank
Henry
Shue
and
the
two
anonymous
reviewers
who
provided
comments
on
an
ear-
lier
version
of
this text.
1
Kofi
Annan,
'We
the peoples,'
Millennium
Report
(New
York:
United
Nations
2000),
48.
2
For
a
detailed
history of
the principle
of
non-intervention,
see
R.J.
Vincent,
Non-
Intervention
and
International
Order
(Princeton
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press
1974).
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Autumn
2002
Jennifer
Welsh,
Carolin
Thielking,
& S.
Nell
MacFarlane
externally
as
freedom
from outside
interference.
The
latter,
identified
in
the
preamble
and
article
1(3)
and
elaborated
in
subsequent
declarations
and
conventions,
suggests
that
individual
rights
are
inalienable
and
transcend
sovereign
frontiers.
Several
features
of
contemporary
international
relations
have
sharp-
ened this
conflict
and
provided added impetus to
those
calling
for
more
interventionism:
the
weakness
(or
complete
failure)
of
state
structures
in
many
conflict-ridden
societies,
which
provides
opportu-
nity
for
criminal
activity,
arms
proliferation,
and
terrorism; the
increased
vulnerability
of
civilians
in
the
context
of
civil
conflict;
the
'CNN
effect,'
in which
global
and
instantaneous
access
to
information
heightens
popular
awareness
of
human
suffering;
the
strengthening
of
human
rights
norms
and
proliferation
of
human
rights
organizations;
the
fear
of
refugee
flows;
and
the
search by
Western
governments
for
new forms
of
political
legitimacy
and
'moral
authority'
to replace
the
ideologically
driven
agenda
of
the
cold
war.
In
short,
today's
debate
about
the legitimacy
of
intervention
is
conducted
in
a
climate
of
heightened
expectations
for
action.
This
permissive
context
for
intervention
provided the
backdrop
for
Kofi
Annan, the
secretary
general
of
the
United Nations,
to
issue
a
challenge to
the international
community
to
prevent
'another
Rwanda.'
At
the
General
Assembly
in
1999,
Annan
called
for
a
new
consensus
on
the
age-old
problem
of
intervention
and
a
plan
of
action
for
responding
to
humanitarian
tragedies.
3
Canada's
response
to this
call,
led by
the
former
foreign
affairs
minister,
Lloyd
Axworthy,
was
the
International
Commission
on
Intervention
and
State
Sovereignty
(ICISS).
The
ICISS
was
announced
at
the
United
Nations
Millennium
Summit
in
September
2000
by Canada's
prime minister,
Jean
Chr~tien,
and
received
funding,
thought
leadership,
and
organizational
support
from
the
Canadian
government.
4
It
was
modelled
on
the
1987
Brundtland
World Commission
on
Environment
and Development
and had
three
goals:
1) to
promote
a
comprehensive
debate
about
humanitarian intervention;
2)
to foster
a
new
political consensus
on
3
Secretary
General's Annual
Report
to
the
General
Assembly,
Press
Release
SG/SM7136,
20
September
1999.
4
Other
funders
included
the
Carnegie
Corporation
of
New
York,
the
William
and
Flora
Hewlett
Foundation, the
John
D.
and
Catherine
T.
MacArthur Foundation, the
Rockefeller Foundation,
and
the
Simons Foundation.
490
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Autumn
2002
To continue reading
Request your trial