Are the International principles the same for everyone?

2013

Since March 2011, the human suffering in the Syrian conflict is a disaster for the people of Syria, but also indicate a crisis of international intervention. The global community has failed to protect and support civilians who are in large numbers are being tortured, slaughtered, displaced, brutalized, or impoverished by the conflict. The purpose of this paper is to discuss humanitarian intervention and the crisis in Syria: Should the global community intervene or not intervene? To this end, a background on Syria will be provided. Events that led to the conflict in Syria will be presented in this paper. In addition, the paper will look at good governance, the atrocities against Syrian people, human rights violations undertaken by government forces and rebel groups, legal issues awaiting the Syrian regime and responsibility to protect. This research will arrive at a conclusion by stating the global community must intervene in Syria.

2014

The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine allows the international community to intervene for humanitarian purposes in events of massive violations of human rights. However, the legality of humanitarian intervention has received considerable critical attention because of its direct conflict with two fundamental norms in international law: the prohibition of the use of force, except under certain conditions, and the principle of state sovereignty. In Syria, mass atrocity crimes are escalating on a daily basis. Until now, international efforts have failed to find a peaceful formula to stop the crisis. International law allows the Security Council to authorize humanitarian intervention under the power of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Politically, however, the Security Council is deadlocked. This study applied the three pillars of the R2P to the Syrian case and found that Syria is indeed an R2P case. Moreover, the research considers the legality of humanitarian intervention versus its legitimacy. It concludes that humanitarian intervention is illegal or, at best, its legality is ambiguous. The research stresses the need to re-evaluate the international legal norms to respond to overwhelming humanitarian necessity. The research then analyses different scholarly opinions to study the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention and suggests that the international community has the right to protect Syrian citizens based on their moral duty. The thesis studies the political interests of the different strategic stakeholders in the Syrian situation and concludes that due to the lack of international interest, intervention is unlikely to materialize, and Syrians must look toward conflict resolution and reconciliation between the warring parties in order to rebuild Syria.

The protection of basic human rights has remained one of the most pressing and yet elusive goals of the international community. Though fashioned to counter one of the most insidious dangers that threaten the very foundation of modern-day international order, the number of deaths related to armed conflict and the collateral damage caused by international warfare has remained frightening. With the demise of Ghaddaffi, world attention shifted to Syria, especially as it concerns intervention to put a stop to the protracted killings and the human rights violations as a result of the heavy clamp down on citizens by the Assad regime. However, the inability of the international community to effectively respond to the Syria crisis through the humanitarian intervention responsibility to protect doctrine (RtoP) and the geopolitics between the United States (US), Russia and China mean that a dangerous stalemate remains in the Syria crisis. This study argues that for the RtoP to silence its critics, world leaders need to agree on a common ground for the protection of civilians through a strict monitoring and evaluation of the intervention process and the actors involved, enforcing an arms embargo, and committing to support local cease fires.

Democracy and Security in Southeastern Europe, 2020

This paper compares the humanitarian intervention in Libya and interventions in Syria, and highlights their key determinants. The aim of this paper is to present the problems regarding the use of force by UN Security Council permanent members in order to prevent and put an end to humanitarian catastrophes in the aforementioned countries. The paper analyses UN Security Council resolutions, official positions of the Security Council permanent members, and other relevant documents concerning these issues, in order to explain two crucial things: first, the effect that the humanitarian intervention in Libya had on the undertaking of a similar intervention in Syria, and second: whether the interventions in Libya and Syria were legitimate according to international law.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), 2014

The Legality and Legitimacy of Using Armed Force for the Protection of Strangers-From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect The ceaseless State-made humanitarian atrocities in the past decades toll the bell for the whole international community to take a responsibility. The traditional doctrine of humanitarian intervention encourages States or States groups to use armed force in a foreign territory for the protection of civilians of the targeted State. This doctrine has lived through a long history of international relations, from an age when States-resorting-to-war was legal to the time when the use of force is generally prohibited by international law. The legality of humanitarian intervention is quite controversial under the modern international law since 1945. On the one hand, the UN Charter lays down strict rules of lawful use of force; on the other hand, State practice of humanitarian intervention in the new era always lead to intense debate about whether humanitarian considerations can serve as a justification for military intervention in a sovereign State. However, hardly there is a universal consensus among States and scholars on this question. After the Cold War, a new form of humanitarian intervention, authorized by the UN Security Council, comes into the cause of international society, which is generally recognized as a lawful use of force. In the beginning of the new millennium, the emerging concept of Responsibility to Protect, which inherits the core spirit of humanitarian intervention-using armed force for the protection of strangers, has been quickly recognized by most States. This paper is going to assess the legality of humanitarian intervention by examine both the treaty laws and customary international law. Also, it attempts to address the legitimacy issue of using armed force for the protection of strangers without the Security Council authorization, by going through the changing position of the major States in this regard, especially those which always against. Keywords sovereignty, human rights, use of force, Article 2(4), customary international law, State practice, opinio juris, R2P, humanitarian intervention xiv 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Starting from March 2011, the Syrian conflict, ignited by the government's bloody repression of largely non-violent protests, has entered its fifth year. 1 The Syrian government forces and pro-government militia, as well as armed rebel groups, have committed massive crimes against humanity and war crimes since the conflict broke up. Till April 2014, approximately 200,000 civilians have been documented killed and the death toll is still accumulating day by day. 2 In its fifth year, the Syrian crisis remains unsolved: The fighting is continuing between the warring parties; the civilian population is still suffering; and the perpetrators are shielded from accountability. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) described the deteriorating Syrian situation as-a conflagration of an unparalleled scale and magnitude‖. 3 Responding to the severe security situation in Syria, in April 2012, the United Nations dispatched a United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) 4 to monitor a cessation of armed violence, and to monitor and support the full implementation of the Envoy's sixpoint proposal, which was issued with the support of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. 5 However, in the mandated period of UNSMIS, the six-point proposal was set aside by all the parties and the violence in Syria escalated from civilian unrest to civil war. 6 Considering the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria during the past three years, in February 2014, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 2139, 7 demanding the Syrian authorities and other warring parties to allow humanitarian access in Syria. Due to the absence of cooperation from both the Syrian authorities and the opposite parties, this resolution has yet to make a meaningful difference in 1 This paper only covers facts before its finished date in May 2015.

The limits of responsibility to protect, 2023

This paper examines the role of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in the decision-making processes of international actors during the conflicts in Libya and Syria. It explores why the international community chose to intervene in Libya but not in Syria despite the arguable similarities between the two cases. The paper argues that the decision not to intervene in Syria was due to several factors, including the lack of international consensus, the geopolitical interests of major powers, and the perceived risks and costs of intervention. In contrast, the intervention in Libya was made possible by a unique combination of factors, including the timing of the conflict, the regional context, and political-economic factors. The paper also highlights the misuse in Libya as a justification by the Russia-led block to prevent the use of R2P in Syria. Furthermore, it emphasises the need for a more nuanced understanding of the R2P doctrine and its application in practice. The paper argues that although R2P lacks bindingness and coercive mechanisms to implement and observe the concept, this should not be used as a pretext to prevent its application. This paper considers the idea that the inconsistent application of R2P in the cases of Libya and Syria has called attention to the fragile nature and legal basis of international intervention, and the limits of R2P in practice.

Responsibility to protect or \"R to P\" refers to the \"principle of responsibility to protect\", and on the basis of which the government is not a privilege, but a \"responsibility\" that leaders should have towards the people. Each government has a duty to protect its people against mass murder, war crimes, racial or ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This responsibility requires the prevention of such crimes through appropriate and necessary means. Accordingly, a government should not wage war and slaughter against its own people and justify this oppression with \"sovereignty\" and principles such as \"non-interference\" and \"equality of states\". If the government fails to take responsibility for it and resort to the hot and cold war against its own people, and it brings forth wars and massacres, the international community has the right to interfere in that country. This interference is not from the beginning of a violent and armed struggle. The international community can deal with the government at the beginning of the law and put political and economic constraints on it to stop harassing its own people, but this interference can also be drawn into a military confrontation, an interference that needs to change the situation in its own perspective. And he will end the war and massacre. Meanwhile, this military intervention should be inevitably inevitable. That is, diplomatic methods do not answer. Another point is that this intervention does not necessarily take into account the fall of the anti-people government from the outset, and the overthrow of the perpetrated government (even if it is not announced) is not its predetermined objective. In this paper, the authors are seeking to investigate the Syrian crisis and be responsible for the protecting international organizations in the crisis, and this raises the question of whether international organizations in the process of protecting responsibility have managed to control the Syrian crisis.

EJMSS, 2024

This study analyzed the United Nations application of the principles of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) in the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian conflict which started in 2011 has raged on for over twelve years, with thousands of people killed, maimed, millions displaced, and large-scale properties destroyed. Despite Syria being a member of the United Nations (UN), the UN has not been able to intervene to bring the conflict to an end. A qualitative research design was adopted for the study. Findings show that several factors are aiding the continuation of the Syrian civil war, and the inability of the UN to apply its principles of R2P effectively in the Syrian war. The study found that the two leading countries of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Russia and the United States of America, have vested interests in the Syrian conflict by supporting and arming opposing sides of the war. Also, the UNSC, which is the arm of the UN responsible for peace and security in the world, is currently weakened by internal politics and indiscriminate use of veto powers. However, the study recommends that the United Nations General Assembly should take unilateral decisions to end the Syrian conflict. Also, Russia and the United States of America should desist from arming and supporting the opposing sides. Keywords: Appraisal, Conflict, Failure, Protect, Responsibility, United Nations

Politeia South African Journal for Political Science and Public Administration

In this article, the discourse around humanitarian intervention involving international human rights law, morality, and politics, is considered, and a right to intervention given the rigours of sovereignty is questioned. Further issues interrogated are: if intervention takes place, should it be authorised by the United Nations or should unilateral intervention by regional organisations or a single country be permissible in the face of mass killings, genocide and similar events; and what factors drive the act or omission of unilateral intervention for humanitarian purposes? The debate around these inquiries is introduced by considering the intermeshing of world politics and international law in a substantially globalising world -with particular reference to state sovereignty and the role of the United Nations. Thereafter, the evolution of humanitarian intervention and its contemporary development is examined -in the specific context of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya. This is done by examining the justifications for such intervention under international law. The legality of the intervention is explored and it is argued that the Libyan experience demonstrates that humanitarian intervention is more about morality and politics than international law. Although the lessons learned from the Libyan conflict are perhaps still unclear, it is concluded that a reformed UN Security Council may well be the global authority with auspices above powerful nation-state interests, and with the wherewithal to give meaning to international law over morality and politics in humanitarian interventions.

Resolution 2118 on chemical disarmament in Syria broke the diplomatic impasse over Syria within the Security Council (SC). Its adoption has been celebrated as the victory of multilateralism over unilateralism, averting the threat of military intervention. However, Resolution 2118 was not adopted within Chapter VII of the UN Charter and neither contains reference to the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle. Therefore, the Syrian issue will be considered a "paradigm" of the turning point of R2P. In this regard, this article discusses why the international community reacted in a dissimilar way to the Libyan and Syrian civil wars and what is the impact of this discrepancy on the legal status of R2P. The article discusses the current practice of R2P, arguing that its future should take the form of an informal commitment by the fi ve permanent members not to wield their veto power in cases of gross violations of human rights.

This research examines the applications of the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine and whether this doctrine has adopted different structure from the humanitarian intervention term in the military action through an assessment of the crisis in Libya. In the 1990s, the nature of the armed conflict changed dramatically. Interstate wars were replaced by violent intrastate conflicts that caused the breach of human rights and death of many civilians. Due to the escalation of internal conflicts, which leads to humanitarian crises, the international community has gradually recognized the significance of international negotiation or intervention to prevent crisis. International intervention includes military action, which violates the concept of state sovereignty. The R2P, was implemented to increase the relationship between the state sovereignty concept and individual human rights, defines sovereignty as a responsibility to defend its population from mass atrocities. The first full-scale test of the R2P was in the intervention in Libya. Though initially it was considered as a model case of how the R2P should be applied but the wisdom of this intervention has largely been taken into question as the country descends further into civil war. The questions are also raised on whether the R2P has other political interests rather than defending human rights and it is old wine in new bottles.

2014

The battle between the USA and Russia that had been snuffed by the demise of the Soviet Union has been rekindled. The USA and Russia have regional doctrines that demarcate areas to which outside powers cannot encroach. However, the Middle East has remained a contested region for the two powers. USA has also sought to encroach into the backyard of Russia in order to contain the resurgence of the Eastern power. Both states have sought to protect their regions of influence and in the era beginning with the Arab spring, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has been used to justify geo-political interventions. This article argues that the current tussle between the USA and Russia on Syria and Ukraine can be understood more from geopolitical struggles than from the humanitarian intervention argument.