.png){kind=icon}
1. Was R. J. Vincent right to argue that how governments treat their population has become the subject of legitimate scrutiny? Answer with reference to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ framework considered in the case study (listed under Important Websites).
The R2P framework (p. 20) is premised on the belief that all governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from the ‘four crimes’ of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Where states fail to meet this obligation, the international community is obliged to take a range of decisive measures, with force being the last resort. In this sense, the framework of R2P rests on three main pillars:
“1. Each individual State bears the primary responsibility for protecting its own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this primary responsibility.
3. The international community has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. Should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities of States manifestly fail to protect their populations from these crimes, the international community must be prepared to take timely and decisive action to protect those populations at risk, in accordance with the UN Charter.” (‘The Responsibility to Protect’, available: https://r2pasiapacific.org/about-us/about-r2p).
In establishing these three pillars, the framework of R2P reaffirms a dual understandings of state sovereignty, that distinguishes notions of external sovereignty (the mutual recognition among states and their borders) from internal sovereignty (the idea that a state carries political economic and social responsibility for its citizens). Within the framework of R2P the latter is prioritized, suggesting that failure to adhere to internal sovereignty may in some limited cases undermine external sovereignty and justify (even call for) intervention. As such, internal sovereignty is posited as the core frame of measurement to assess the legitimacy of states.
2. How far is the emphasis on human rights protection by core western states such as the UK, France, and the USA vulnerable to a decline in the global power of liberal values and institutions?
The idea of R2P, is fundamentally premised on a liberal framework. Not only is it closely tied to the establishment of a common set of liberal values (p. 12-13) in its emphasis on universal human rights, it is further contingent on a format of mediation that is closely aligned with (neo)liberal tenets, notably those of international institution (e.g. United Nations Security Council; International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)), and interdependence (p. 10-11; see also Ch. 06). As such, it is likely that an emphasis on human rights protection via such measures as R2P is contingent on the persistence of liberal values and institutions within the international. Whether these have been threatened in the context of R2P is a fruitful discussion to be taken up. Use of specific case studies – the international response to the Yugoslavian war or the Rwandan genocide, and international intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only a few – are likely to assist you in extrapolating such questions.