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

IS R2P NECESSARY AT ALL?
After researching R2P for the past year I believe that R2P does not add anything new
to the already existing laws that are in place for the protection of civilians. The
responsibility of states to protect their citizens from harm is strongly grounded in
international law. States are still bound by these duties in international law to prevent
and protect. They are also bound to the Charter that stops states interfering in the
internal affairs of other states. The Security Council is still the only international body
that can determine whether a situation constitutes a threat so serious that it
jeopardises international peace and security. The states still determine whether they
wish to give military assistance, military capacity and air force assistance to the
Security Council in the event of a threat to international peace and security. States
can still derogate from international civil and political rights during a state of
emergency effectively over-riding any claim to human rights that the civilians had
during civil disorder.
States can still use civilian uprisings as a reason for the state of emergency; they can
frame the civilians as being a terrorist threat in a state of siege or threatening a civil
war and therefore take away rights to free association, free assembly and freedom of
media. The state effectively still controls the citizens’ right to freedom to choose or
elect a new government in a state of emergency situation. Unfortunately R2P adds
nothing new to help civilians during a state of emergency in a political uprising. It
clarifies and declares the duties of states but it cannot and does not have the ability to
enforce. This clarifies the fact that R2P is not necessary. The obligations of states are
already well defined.
122