|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Carnegie Council Podcast |
 |
Carnegie Council RSS |
 |
Follow us on Twitter |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Home > Resources > Ethics & International Affairs Journal > Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 20.2 (Summer 2006) > Articles |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit [Abstract]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
July 28, 2006
At the 2005 World Summit, the world’s leaders committed themselves to the "responsibility to protect", recognizing both that all states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and that the UN should help states to discharge this responsibility using either peaceful means or enforcement action. This declaration ostensibly marks an important milestone in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights but its critics argue that it will make little difference in practice to the world’s most threatened people.
The purpose of this article is to ask how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world’s states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos (cases where the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of a humanitarian crises) and future Rwandas (cases where states lack the political will to intervene). It suggests that four key factors contributed to the consensus: pressure from proponents of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, its adoption by Kofi Annan and the UN’s High Level Panel, an emerging consensus in the African Union, and the American position. Whilst these four factors contributed to consensus, each altered the meaning of the responsibility to protect in important ways, creating a doctrine that many states can sign up to but that does little to prevent future Kosovos and Rwandas and may actually inhibit attempts to build a consensus around intervention in future cases.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Carnegie Council's flagship publication, Ethics & International Affairs is an interdisciplinary resource for scholars, students, and policy analysts concerned with the moral dimensions of global issues. The journal covers global justice, civil society, democratization, international law, intervention, sanctions, and related topics.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
To subscribe to Ethics & International Affairs, or to purchase individual issues and articles, go to Wiley-Blackwell.
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
For submission guidelines, click here.
RESPONSES
The Editors welcome responses to Features and Essays published in Ethics & International
Affairs. To be considered for publication, responses should be no longer than one
thousand words, including endnotes (which
should be kept to a minimum). Responses
are not peer-reviewed, and are published at
the Editors' discretion. All responses are
subject to editing for length and style. In the
event of any questions or substantive editing,
the response will be returned to the author
for final approval prior to publication.
Responses are published online, alongside
the article they address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The central address for a fairer globalization.
> More
|
|
|
|
Weekly 90-second videos on newsworthy ethical issues.
> More
|
|
|
|
Go to the Journal for articles on ethics and foreign policy.
> More
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
