Você está na página 1de 2

The responsibility to protect was borne out of frustration with the international communitys repeated failures to intervene in cases

of on-going mass atrocity, especially those in Rwanda and Kosovo.1 R2 put the focus on the peoples at grave ris! of harm rather than on the rights of states. "t also stressed that responsibility was shared # as between the primary duty of states to protect their own populations and the secondary duty of the wider community. 2 $ccording to the 2%%1 Report of the "nternational &ommission on "ntervention and 'tate 'overeignty, R2 applied when there was (serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently li!ely to occur) involving the large-scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, produced by either deliberate state action or state neglect, inability to act, or in a failed situation)* The crucial +uestion, who is authori-ed to ta!e military action in response, the &ommission indicated that the 'ecurity &ouncil was the first port of call but it did not categorically e.clude the possibility that R2 could ultimately be e.ercised the /$, regional organi-ations, or even coalitions of the willing.0 &ommission stipulated that legitimate interventions would re+uire (1ust cause) right intention, last resort, proportionality of means, and reasonable prospects of success. 2 This concept was embraced by the /$ in Resolution 3%41, 2%%2 5orld 'ummit 6utcome and has since been cited by the 'ec &ouncil in Resolution 1370 8$pril 2%%39 where the &ouncil (reaffirmed) states (responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. 3 The concept of R2 elevated the lives of people over abstractions of the government and the state.7 R2 is based on the proposition that while going to war is a mista!e, it may be, as /areth :vans himself argues, an (even bigger mista!e) not to go to war (to protect fellow human beings from catastrophe when we should.; "n 2%%1 the "nternational &ommission on "ntervention and 'tate 'overeignty 8"&"''9 introduced into the debate the concept of (the responsibility. < R2 was formally and unanimously embraced by the => /eneral $ssembly meeting at the head state and government level at the 2%%2 5orld 'ummit.1% "dentifying &ountries of R2 &oncern 1. The need for selectivity
1 2

Philip Alston and Euan MacDonald Humanitarian Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force (2008) Jose E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P 3 Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Dec 2001) XII 4 Jose E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, p. 276 5 Jose E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, 276 6 GA Res 60/1 (2005 World Summit Outcome), 24 Oct 2005, par. 138-9. 7 Jose E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, 280 8 Gareth Evans, From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect 24 Wis. Intnl L.J. 703, 722
9 10

Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (2008), 31.

5hat is the criterion? 5hat is it that ma!es an (R2 situation) or a (R2 concern?) The short answer is that R2 situations are those where mass atrocity crimes # involving genocide, ethnic cleansing or other war crimes or crimes against humanity # are actually occurring or imminently about to occur or where the situation could deteriorate to this e.tent in the medium or longer term unless appropriate preventive measures are ta!en. They are situations, actual or reasonably foreseeable, that should engage the attention of the international community simply because of the particularly conscience-shoc!ng character of the conduct actually or potentially involved.11 5atch @ist &riteria12 1. 5hether the country in +uestion has a past history of mass atrocities perepetrated by repressive governments or different groups in the population against each other or both. 2. 5hether tensions of a !ind that have given rise to conflict in the past in the past, even if falling short of the perpetration of full scale mass atrocities, still persist. *. 'trength of the countrys coping mechanisms when it comes to resolving grievances and tensions. &onflict of a nonviolent !ind in all societies. 0. Receptivity of the country or society in +uestion to e.ternal influence, either positively, in the form of welcoming assistance to solve its problems. 2. /ood leadership

11 12

75 Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (2008)

Você também pode gostar