Post Views:
1
ABSTRACT
As a result of the failure of the UN and the entire international system to protect people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity such as was committed in Rwanda and Srebrenica in 1994 and 1995 respectively, the international system deemed it necessary to settle on a legal and political structure for a united international action (humanitarian intervention) that will protect people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This led to the institution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine which was unanimously adopted by UN member states at the 2005 World Summit held in New York. The main objective of R2P is to guide the UN and the international system in protecting people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This dissertation uses the interventions in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya under the R2P doctrine as case studies to investigate whether the operationalization of the R2P concept has in principle and practice protected the rights of citizens or otherwise perpetuated crimes. More specifically, the study seeks to find out if the use of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P is a semblance of the Crime of Aggression. The study is based on the theory of humanitarian imperialism. Humanitarian imperialism is chosen as the relevant theory for this study because of its assumption that humanitarian interventions can become problematic for developing countries within which the intervention is carried out. This assumption is useful in determining whether or not this was the case in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya under the R2P doctrine. As a case study, the research employs a qualitative approach, using semi- structured interviews and purposive sampling technique, to collect the requisite data from the target population. The findings of the study shows that operationalization of R2P in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya has not protected the rights of the citizens but rather ascended crime perpetuation since some atrocities committed against citizens in both Côte d’Ivoire and Libya were committed by operators of R2P in both states. Also, the findings of the study reveal that the application of R2P in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, specifically the use of military force, has resulted in acts that could be likened to the crime of aggression. This finding is therefore a critique against the R2P doctrine. In conclusion, the study recommends that all states, specifically states in Africa, should make use of democratic institutions this is largely due to the similar deep-seated concerns of unconstitutional changes of government and territory occupation which births such atrocities and rights abuse. Given that democratic institutions are effectively in place and followed, there would be no need for humanitarian intervention hence, R2P.
CHAPTER ONERESEARCH DESIGN Background to the Research Problem
War over the centuries is a containing feature of international relations. While mortality is considered sacred and can only be affected by God or by the necessary earthly authorities; war has often been deemed a necessary evil as a means to dominate, prevent a greater calamity, or protect altruistic values and principles.
The world was taken by surprise in the 1990s about the terrible violence in countries of which the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda were intricate in. The concept of ‘sovereignty’ crippled the international system in such a way that it was unable to do much to forestall the violent acts in these countries however, the founding of the United Nations (UN) during 1945 has had a cardinal goal of preventing conflicts between states and a dawning era of global security as well as peace. The stub of the Cold War also saw a drastic reduction of inter-state wars. In place of inter-state aggression, there is an increasing occurrence of war and violence within states.1
Thus, giving rise to the need for humanitarian intervention which characterizes intercessions in the domestic affairs of states by powerful states or collectively by powerful states. The concept of intervention has been previously engaged with reference to the annals of ancient political thought and its notable concept of the just war theory.2 Political thinkers such as John Stuart Mills, Rousseau, Kant and Hegel have proffered “when a state’s sovereignty should be disregarded and when it is respected by other states with reference to global concerns such as
humanitarian causes, national self-determination, and national security”.3 These political philosophers judged intervention not only as tolerable but mandatory. The Just War theory that emerged in the 16th and 17th Centuries permitted the right to wage war and punish tyrannies, enemies, enemies’ friends, rescue the afflicted or uphold revered values.4 However, humanitarian interventions span across several issues which include non-military interventions as captured by the international committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Actions such as Doctors without borders and relief supplies sent to naturally devastated areas (flood, earthquake, hurricane, landslides, etc.) which are highly commendable among other acts in general that are geared towards the global alleviation of human suffering.
In contrast, intervention in practice has been the locus of various controversies and is often seen as big-power politics. Political philosophers such as R Vincent were very skeptical about humanitarian intervention.
During the Cold War, given the realpolitik climate of the ideologically East-West divide, UN Charter 2(7) dominated and prevented ‘interference in the domestic affairs’ of state members. That era was marked with great suspicion for the incentives for intervention and it was forcefully rejected. Yet, it was marked by serious rights abuses in places like Chile, Zaire, and Cambodia when the states turned their war and egregious torture machines against parts of its population with impunity. The changed profile of threats to global peace, mostly transnational and the cusp of the Cold War resulted in the Boutros Boutros Ghali’s “Agenda for Peace”, a ground-breaking doctrine that sought to redefine sovereignty as a responsibility and called for forceful interposition in the domestic affairs of UN states members to maintain a long sought-after peace. The bound of the Cold War witnessed increased intervention as peacekeeping multiplied. UN
Resolutions for peacekeeping, even aid delivery, became authorized under the enforcement provisions of UN Chapter 7 instead of Chapter 6.
Related
INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT
- 1.Your Full name
- 2. Your Active Email Address
- 3. Your Phone Number
- 4. Amount Paid
- 5. Project Topic
- 6. Location you made payment from