For nearly half a decade discussion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and international criminal justice proceeded along separate lines. However, in recent years an emerging perception that international criminal law may contribute to putting an end to a continuing atrocity crimes has lead to its use as an R2P reactive tool. This paper examines the relationship between R2P and the activity of International Criminal Court (the ICC), and the implications of their recent rapprochement. Firstly, the paper aims to bring a much-needed focus on the implications of their current interaction in ongoing conflict situations. Secondly it examines whether the convergence of R2P and the ICC represents a paradigmatic shift toward humanity’s law and a possible utopian tyranny or reinforces the traditional statist system as the fundamental framework for conflict mediation opening the door to a possible “cynic tyranny”. Thirdly, it considers how ICC and R2P activities should be coordinated.

For nearly half a decade discussion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and international criminal justice proceeded along separate lines. However, in recent years an emerging perception that international criminal law may contribute to putting an end to a continuing atrocity crimes has lead to its use as an R2P reactive tool. This paper examines the relationship between R2P and the activity of International Criminal Court (the ICC), and the implications of their recent rapprochement. Firstly, the paper aims to bring a much-needed focus on the implications of their current interaction in ongoing conflict situations. Secondly it examines whether the convergence of R2P and the ICC represents a paradigmatic shift toward humanity’s law and a possible utopian tyranny or reinforces the traditional statist system as the fundamental framework for conflict mediation opening the door to a possible “cynic tyranny”. Thirdly, it considers how ICC and R2P activities should be coordinated.

The debate regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the protection of the hu-man rights was at its peak during the 1990’s. Never again the world wanted to witness the atrocities committed in Rwanda, but at the same time some states argued in favor of a strict interpretation of the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention. In 2001, ICISS was created – a commission with the aim to find consensus in the question of how the world should respond to mass atrocities committed by a state against their own people. Their work resulted in a report which presented a new view to the state sovereignty: “the responsibility to protect” (R2P). The purpose of this essay is to study the development and appliance of the concept since 2001. According to ICISS, every state has a responsibility to protect its citizens against mass atrocities. If the state is unwilling, or incapable to live up to this responsibility, the international community has the secondary responsibility to protect the people in that state. At the time of ICISS:s report, R2P had a limited legal value and could only be consid-ered as a soft law-principle consisting of arguments de lege ferenda. During the World Sum-mit in 2005, the principle evolved into an international normative concept consisting of the state’s opinio iuris, as R2P was implemented in two paragraphs in the Outcome Document. The definition of the concept now became narrower than the original principle, since R2P only applied to genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The ap-pliance of R2P has been fairly inconsequent in practice. Although usus has not been reached in the area, R2P is now an established concept, and the debate has led from if the international community should act, to how it should act. In the future, regional organizations will probably play an extended role in the work for international peace. Interventions without the Security Council’s mandate is not a desirable outcome, but nevertheless a possibility if the Council doesn’t become more effective when facing mass atrocities and humanitarian disasters.

This thesis deals with the future of the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and focuses on prospects of the concept after the conflicts in Libya and Syria. Concept of R2P was developed in 2001 as a reaction to the genocide in Rwanda and Srebrenica and attempts to bring an answer to the question, how to react in the situation when a sovereign state fails to protect its population against crimes under international law. In this thesis I examine the application of the concept in Libya and reasons why it was not applied to a similar situation in Syria. I also deal with the subsequent debate which was held on the international stage after experience with these conflicts and I analyse proposals, which were brought into this debate focusing on how to move the concept forward or modify it. I therefore examine the Brazilian concept of the Responsibility while Protecting (RwP), the question of adoption of guidelines for the intervention according to the R2P, the topic of monitoring and accountability of the intervening state, the Responsibility not to veto and the issue of limiting the use of veto in UN Security Council, the possibility of involvement of UN General Assembly in the R2P, the question of prevention and the topic of unilateral non-forcible measures. The unilateral non- forcible measures,...

LL.M. (International Law) / In 2000, the government of Canada set up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (“ICISS”).1 This was in a response to the request of the erstwhile secretary-general of the United Nations (“UN”) to the general assembly in 1999 and in 2000 to address the dilemma of intervention in situations of mass murder and egregious violations of human rights ...

No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this mini-thesis is to examine the inconsistency in the implementation of the responsibility to protect (RTP) principle during armed conflicts with specific focus on the case of Libya and Darfur. Furthermore the mini-thesis scrutinizes the criteria which are utilized universally and questions whether the principle is determined by factors such as economics, politics and location depending on each crisis. The significance of this minithesis derives from the need to make a contribution to the new interventionism debate and contribute to the growing literature on the doctrine of the RTP especially when it comes to the inconsistencies during its application which seems to be on the rise especially in the African continent. The mini-thesis was guided by the following assumption that there are inconsistencies when it comes to the application of the RTP under humanitarian law. The mini-thesis also embarks on an enquiry into the legal aspects of the RTP doctrine and the legal status of humanitarian intervention. It is worth noting that the RTP doctrine does not concentrate on every human rights violation or abuse of power, even when these are very serious as in the case of Sudan. It certainly does not empower or establish an obligation on the international community to respond by over-riding the offending state’s sovereignty. The initial intention of the RTP was aimed at preventing mass attacks or large scale violations involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It is greatly disappointing to note that the international community at large tends to overlook the more severe crises which have more casualties and turn their eyes on less serious humanitarian crises. This raises concern about the extent of the inconsistency in the application of the RTP. The question that begs an answer therefore is why intervene in Libya and not Darfur? In conclusion to this mini-thesis I came to the realization that inconsistencies within the application of the RTP exist because humanitarian intervention under the RTP has a massive political element which affects implementation. The RTP is often used as a justification for states to act in conflicts when there is no domestic support for more direct political intervention. Thus, I believe that intervention can never be completely humanitarian driven until the five RTP precautionary principles are used as a guideline or criteria for interventions.

Masters of Art / Intervention is a controversial issue in international relations. In recent years, the issue of intervention has been further complicated by the attention given to terrorism following the 9/11 attacks on the United States (US) by the terrorist group under the name of Al Qaeda. In 2005, the United Nations (UN) member states adopted the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle that was coined by the Canadian government to give intervention a multilateral dimension. The R2P principle was established to protect civilians from four atrocity crimes, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. R2P gives the international community authority to intervene in situations where states are failing to protect their citizens from the aforementioned atrocity crimes.

The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. This study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to Protect. Three criteria to justify use of Responsibility to Protect are created from an analysis of international deliberations in previous interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011). The Russian Federation involvement in Kosovo is analyzed in order to better understand its stance regarding intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's sovereignty; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent as their case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council. / Master of Arts / The Russian Federation has claimed that its unilateral intervention in Crimea represents a case for Responsibility to Protect. The study investigates how the international community reacts to and determines a case of Responsibility to protect. By analyzing the humanitarian intervention of Kosovo and the prior Responsibility to Protect cases of Côte d'Ivoire (2010), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011), three criteria are established to determine if use of Responsibility to Protect is appropriate. The case of Kosovo is analyzed since the Russian Federation used this to further justify its intervention in Crimea. Classification as Responsibility to Protect requires the following: (1) the case must have confirmed human rights violations; (2) the state must demonstrate that the human rights violations are more important than the state's right to rule over its own population; and, (3) the state must use the multilateral system in the United Nations Security Council. The Russian Federation's intervention in Crimea constitutes a case for Responsibility to Protect to a minimal extent only since its case did not have confirmed human rights violations and did not intervene multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council.

This thesis examines how the norm of nonintervention has interacted with the norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to construct a new normative architecture of international order. Nonintervention has long served as a deeply embedded norm in the international normative architecture. However, conflicting interpretations of how to respond in cases of egregious intra-state human rights abuses have fuelled contestation surrounding the potential for international protection measures including the projection of force. Drawing from international relations theory, I embrace a social constructivist approach with insights from the English School to explore the nature of normative structures and their role in undergirding international society. While foreign policy decisions reflect a spectrum of normative and non-normative considerations, norms serve as resources that guide and shape the behaviour of actors. Outlining the emergence of R2P and its invocation through empirical cases of mass atrocities in Sri Lanka (2009), Libya (2011), and Syria (2011-2015), this thesis traces the contestation of nonintervention through cases of intra-state humanitarian crises. I conclude that nonintervention has recurrently challenged R2P as a means of securing international order and the rights of independent political communities, with its persistent salience serving as a barrier to intervention and more expansive interpretations of R2P.