Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

these states were in breach of their duties to do so and would have benefited from
declaring the state of emergency during these periods, even though genocide and war
crimes are not covered as derogations under the ICCPR. The citizens would have
benefited also as this could be seen as a breach and pose a threat to international
security. Provisions for a time limit on the state of emergency should be in place;
although the measures are temporary many states continue to use the protection of
the Covenant for extended periods of time.
CAN ANY OF THESE SITUATIONS BE INTERPRETED WITHIN R2P AS A
REASON FOR INTERVENTION?
As argued above all states have responsibilities in international law to implement and
carry out provisions for prosecutions of war crimes and genocide under international
customary law. However it has also been noted that ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity must come within the limits of these two provisions. The ICCPR
research has shown that derogations are possible during a state of emergency,
however the state is restricted by the rules of application. However some states do not
comply with these rules, furthermore some are still derogating from some civil and
political rights that are supposed to be protected by international law. Some of these
situations may incorporate the Geneva Conventions by proxy. This is because they
could be seen as situations that involve armed conflict between two or more parties. If
the derogations turn into war crimes, there is no problem in finding the connection
between the R2P framework and an intervention into the state that is not protecting
their citizens from harm.
On the other hand there are also political uprisings, strikes and other internal conflicts
that do not come within the frameworks or jurisdiction on war crimes. The reason
why they do not fall within these frameworks is because they are not situations that
concern international conflict between two parties until there is an identifiable party
that is seen as the ‘other’ party. A party is not individuals or civilians that are
unorganized in a political uprising, peaceful protest or strike union. The Geneva
Conventions clearly say there must be an organized group, identifiable by name flag
or patch and they must be carrying their arms openly. This is problematic to R2P
because it only allows intervention on the premise that there is a threat to
international peace and security. Based on the customary laws already explored, this
114