DIPLOMACY ДИПЛОМАЦИЯ

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: THE CONTINUING POST-COLONIAL WESTERN...
without the authorization of the Security Council (SC). 5 All these courses of action came to be
called “humanitarian intervention” – referred to by some as “the right to intervene”. 6 In Kosovo,
the International Community needed to establish a clearer code of conduct for humanitarian
interventions, and also advocated for a greater reliance on non-military measures in order to
respond and take proper action in such circumstances.
It was then that the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan brought the issue to the attention
of the International Community in 2000. Kofi Annan along with the International Commission
of Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which was sponsored by the Canadian
government, presented the report entitled “The Responsibility to Protect” to the UN General
Assembly at the end of 2001. 7 The Commission made four main contributions to the relevant
international debate.
The first contribution, arguably the most important one, was to adopt a new way of talking
about “humanitarian intervention”. The Commission suggested that the concept of the “right” to
intervene needs to be changed to the “responsibility” 8 to protect the world’s population at grave
risk. So there, the right became a responsibility.
The second contribution was a new way of looking at the concept of “sovereignty”. As
Kofi Annan’s initial solution suggested: “national sovereignty had to be weighed and balanced
against individual sovereignty”. 9 Thus, with respect to the new focus on human rights and
security, sovereignty was no longer absolute. Sovereignty now made the States responsible
for the protection of their own citizens and also for the world’s population in case another
State failed to fulfil its responsibility to protect people within its territory due to its inability or
unwillingness to do so. Of course, the second responsibility can only be done through UN
procedures. 10
The third contribution was to make it very clear for Member States that responsibility
to protect is no longer limited to military intervention. It rather embraces three specific
responsibilities:
A. The responsibility to prevent: to address both the root causes and direct causes of
internal conflict and other man-made crises putting peoples at risk. 11
B. The responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with
appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international
prosecution, and in extreme cases military intervention. 12
C. The responsibility to rebuild: to provide, particularly after a military intervention, full
assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm
the intervention was designed to halt or avert. 13
It is said that the most important principle is to prevent, while the most controversial remains
the principle of reaction – or the use of military force.
The fourth contribution was to establish the principles of adequate conduct in the use of
force within R2P. The problem in the gap between the legitimacy and the legality was hereby
5 Ibid.
6 Verdirame, Guglielmo. "The Law and Strategy of Humanitarian Intervention." The Law and Strategy of Humanitarian
Intervention, Ejil: Talk 30 (2013).
7 Ibid. pg. 708.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid, pg. 709.
10 Ibid.
11 Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. "The Responsibility to Protect."
(2001): 155-75. Pg. XI
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
DIPLOMACY 18/2016
203