Recasting Sovereignty at the UN
| By TKeck - Oct 1st, 2005 at 5:45 pm EDT |
Part of the reform package adopted by member states at the UN summit several weeks ago included the new doctrine known as "The Responsibility to Protect." This new doctrine is supposed to shore up the power and iniatitive of the UN in confronting the most prescient threat to humanity--namely genocide.
Under "the responsibility to protect" the international community assumes the right and responsibility of protecting a targeted population from ethnic cleansing, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, if the country whose nationals are being targeted fails to protect their citizens. This is major departure from absolute-westphalian sovereignty of the past ( note: it is quite obvious that sovereignty hasn't been considered absolute for a long time). Moreover, while legitimate collective security should be attempted through the security council, it is not necessary for intervention. Bascially, the doctrine endorsed a coalition of the willing if consensus could not be reached in the Security Council. This was the basic thrust of the concept of the doctrine when I read it in Foreign Affairs.
Yet, the pledge in the UN reform package has changed since the original idea in Foreign Affairs. The new pledge places much more emphasis on the United Nations as the proper entity for intervention. It came out looking like this:
The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Many have said, this declaration marks a turning point--for now the world must take responsibility for crimes committed outside our borders. Many say this declaration gives the UN the teeth to stand tall in the face of genocide.
Really? According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), all signatories have and still have an OBLIGATION to stop genocide whenver it occurs. That legislation has been in effect for over half a century. While I agree with the central thrust of the "responsibility to protect," I am somewhat skeptical that it could remain just an ideal to be lived up to and/or badly abused for advancing narrow national interests. Ideally, it will unite the world to take action and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe before it occurs.
I would be interested to know what others think of this reform.
Under "the responsibility to protect" the international community assumes the right and responsibility of protecting a targeted population from ethnic cleansing, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, if the country whose nationals are being targeted fails to protect their citizens. This is major departure from absolute-westphalian sovereignty of the past ( note: it is quite obvious that sovereignty hasn't been considered absolute for a long time). Moreover, while legitimate collective security should be attempted through the security council, it is not necessary for intervention. Bascially, the doctrine endorsed a coalition of the willing if consensus could not be reached in the Security Council. This was the basic thrust of the concept of the doctrine when I read it in Foreign Affairs.
Yet, the pledge in the UN reform package has changed since the original idea in Foreign Affairs. The new pledge places much more emphasis on the United Nations as the proper entity for intervention. It came out looking like this:
The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Many have said, this declaration marks a turning point--for now the world must take responsibility for crimes committed outside our borders. Many say this declaration gives the UN the teeth to stand tall in the face of genocide.
Really? According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), all signatories have and still have an OBLIGATION to stop genocide whenver it occurs. That legislation has been in effect for over half a century. While I agree with the central thrust of the "responsibility to protect," I am somewhat skeptical that it could remain just an ideal to be lived up to and/or badly abused for advancing narrow national interests. Ideally, it will unite the world to take action and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe before it occurs.
I would be interested to know what others think of this reform.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Proven records matter. Currently, there is no organization in the world with a proven record of competently, effectively, and consistently intervening in cases of genocide.
Given that the track record of the UN in such matters has not merely been hit-or-miss, but an outright abysmal failure, I see no reason to become optimistic until the track record is there, no matter what pretty words they put on paper.
Stephen Krasner, former professor of International Relations at Stanford, former Director for Governance and Development at the NSC and, as of this February, Director for Policy Planning for the State Department.
Krasner is a close associate of Secretary Rice.
Krasner does not believe in the concept of Westphalian sovereignty (i.e. states don't interfere with events inside another state's borders), and argues that it's largely a myth that's been constructed along with democratization.
He makes a hell of an argument. Check out his interview: Link
He goes on (and this is the part that makes taking Krasner seriously and considering his position an imperative, not just an interesting academic exercise):
Check out his interview, and ask what exactly "sovereignty" means in today's world. It's a mind-blowing proposition, and there are some holes in his case, but all in all he presents a paradigm that needs to be considered if we want to be able to know the realpolitik of the Administration's worldview.