Journal of Conflict and Security Law Advance Access originally published online on August 13, 2008
Journal of Conflict and Security Law 2008 13(2):191-213; doi:10.1093/jcsl/krn014
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and Humanitarian Intervention: Too Many Ambiguities for a Working Doctrine
* Professor of International Law, University of Perugia and LUISS University of Rome, Italy. E-mail: carlo.focarelli{at}alice.it
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The question about possible remedies, including military intervention, to avoid or to put an end to massive violations of human rights committed by a state towards its own citizens or in situations where state authorities critically lack effectiveness has been extensively debated since the issuance in 2001 of the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) on the responsibility to protect. After a succinct and critical review of the ICISS’ report and the subsequent international instruments dealing with the responsibility to protect, this contribution focuses on the positions adopted by states, especially over the last three years at the General Assembly and at the Security Council of the United Nations on humanitarian intervention as a ‘corollary’ of the responsibility to protect doctrine. It appears that humanitarian intervention aimed at implementing the responsibility to protect is not only feared as imperialistic by several weak states, but it also significantly fails to find an unconditioned support even amongst the most powerful states. Given its extreme and multifaceted ambiguity, which is discussed in the last section of this contribution, the innovative content of the purported ‘emerging norm’ on the responsibility to protect, as well as its prospect to emerge in the future, remain rather unclear.
Key Words: responsibility to protect • humanitarian intervention • gross violation of human rights • UN General Assembly • UN Security Council • failed states