What kind of responsibility do some states have for the rights of the subjects of other states?
![Authors Avatar]()
by
daigabarzdinainboxlv (student)
What kind of responsibility do some states have
for the rights of the subjects of other states?
Human rights are “non- derivative and fundamental elements of morality. They embody a form of recognition of the value of each individual that supplements and differs in kind from that which leads us to value the overall increase of human happiness and the eradication of misery”.[1]
Due to the tragic events in Rwanda and the Balkans in 1990s, there was emergence for the international community to engage in serious discussions on taking effective measures in cases where citizens' rights are grossly and systematically violated. The essence of this question is, whether states have absolute sovereignty in charge of their internal affairs, and whether the right of the international community to intervene in the internal affairs of any other state is right for the purposes of humanitarian help.
Any warnings of danger require shared responsibility and cooperation among the States concerned and the international community. Duty to prevent and stop genocide and mass atrocities lies primarily with the concerned State; the international community plays a role that cannot block calls for sovereignty.
Sovereignty protects not only the state from the foreign interference, but it also imposes the responsibility of States for the welfare of its people. This principle is enshrined in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention with the principle of "sovereignty as responsibility" and in the new concept of the “responsibility to protect”.[2]
The term "responsibility to protect" was first mentioned in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty established by the Government of Canada in December 2001. The Commission was established in response to the question of Kofi Annan as at what stage the international community should intervene in the internal affairs of the country for humanitarian purposes. The report stated that sovereignty is not only providing any state the right to “control” their internal affairs, but also imposes an immediate obligation to protect people living within the borders of this state.[3]
“Responsibility to protect” was introduced in 2005 by the UN initiative. It is the new rule of international law. It consists of several principles, united by the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a duty. In accordance with this concept, sovereignty gives states not only the right to control their internal affairs, but also imposes a responsibility to protect the people living outside the borders of these countries. In those cases where the state is unable to protect their people - whether due to lack of opportunities or due to a lack of will - the responsibility shifts to the international community.[4]
The implementation of the concept of "responsibility to protect" is held primarily in organizations aimed at protecting international order and maintaining stability of development. First of all, it usually refers to the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the European Union, the African Union and states where the use of the capacity of these organizations will create the need for effective action.
"The responsibility to protect" focuses on preventing and ending the following types of crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing. All of these types of crimes are united in a single term - massive atrocities crimes.[5]
The concept is based on three conditions:
. The State has an obligation to protect their populations from mass atrocities;
2. The international community must help the state if it cannot self-defense itself;
3. If a State fails protection or peacekeeping operation fails, the international community must intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered only as a last and final measure.[6]
Humanity is faced with a number of conflicts that have shaken the public consciousness in recent years. Among them are the terrible events in Iraq and Syria, the ongoing violence against civilians in South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Ukraine, in the north of Nigeria and in Gaza. International community, in cooperation with the UN, has embarked the emergence of the need to use collective measures of the “responsibility to protect” in order to eliminate the conflicts and safe the peoples around the world.
The activities of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide should be viewed in conjunction with the closely related work of the Special Adviser on the “Responsibility to Protect”, the primary objective of which is to develop a conceptual, political and operational aspects of the concept. It obliges international community to interact with internal affairs of another state in order to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe. Politicians and heads of states are responsible to their nationals in internal stage and to international community, through the UN. They carry responsibility for their acts of doing and can be held responsible for own wrongdoings. According to the UN, if state cannot resolve the issue, the responsibility lies on the international community and demands that collective measures have been taken in order to resolve the matter.
However, discussions regarding the concepts are still under way. The international community has not yet come to a consensus on the need to consolidate the concept of the UN Charter by amending as to what situations are legitimate grounds for international intervention. Therefore, today the concept exists only in the form of a "framework" that does not have a universal legal content.
Using alternative formulation of “sovereignty as responsibility” will help shake up the political debate, encourage governments, in particular, think afresh about what the real issues are. Change in terminology from "interference" to "protection" comes from ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
However, discussions regarding the concepts are still under way. The international community has not yet come to a consensus on the need to consolidate the concept of the UN Charter by amending as to what situations are legitimate grounds for international intervention. Therefore, today the concept exists only in the form of a "framework" that does not have a universal legal content.
Using alternative formulation of “sovereignty as responsibility” will help shake up the political debate, encourage governments, in particular, think afresh about what the real issues are. Change in terminology from "interference" to "protection" comes from the language of "humanitarian intervention".
The aim of “sovereignty as responsibility” is to structure the guidance for national governments and the international community in respect of the performance of their respective duties.
According to the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, sovereignty is defined as the responsibility of each state to protect its own citizens from mass atrocities. If the state is unwilling or unable to fulfill this responsibility, then the duty to protect the people falls within the obligations of the international community.[7]
Francis Deng[8] developed a principle which he termed as a ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, which entailed that the enjoyment of the sovereign right of non-interference was conditional upon the performance of sovereign responsibilities for the protection of populations.
The theory of sovereignty in popular terms has two potentially conflicting ideas. First idea is that people have the right to self-government from outside intervention. Second idea is that the rights of the sovereign people to life and liberty must be secured. Possible conflict between these two ideas is perhaps all clearly observed in the so-called "quasi-states" that emerged from the process of decolonization. Anti-colonialists successfully argued that sovereign independence was a human right that should be accessible to all and, in turn, sovereign independence was necessary for the realization of human rights.
Development of the idea of “sovereignty as responsibility” to protect is an attempt to reconcile or at least deal with the internal contradictions in the idea of sovereignty. This conceptualization of “sovereign responsibilities” shows that, while people have the right to define themselves free from outside interference, it must be due to their human rights, legitimate expression of the will of the sovereign people entails the protection of their individual rights.
It is not only the responsibility of States to protect their populations that are socially determined, but also the right of States to self-governing and of freedom from outside interference. Responsibility for the protection of the population is not a new idea that has been grafted on to the static time-organizing principle of sovereignty. The modern idea is that sovereign states have a responsibility to their people and the international community not to break with centuries-old tradition of unaltered and unfettered sovereign rights. The boundaries of the legitimate sovereign action have always been contested.
Opportunities for making sovereignty more responsible and better in managing the conflicts are considered at regional and international levels. Lessons learned from the mixed success of regional arrangements for the settlement of conflicts, such as the West African intervention in Liberia, East African mediation in Sudan and international efforts to encourage negotiations to end the conflict in Angola, point out the friends and neighbors outside the state in the conflict play an important role in improving the sovereign responsibility. Approaching conflict management in terms of “sovereignty as responsibility” provides a basis for assessing the accountability of the government. It offers standards that define performance and improve mechanisms for conflict prevention.[9]
Rawls states that “a legitimate concern about the duty to assistance is whether the motivational support for following it presupposes a degree of affinity among peoples, that is, a sense of social cohesion and closeness that cannot be expected even in a society of liberal peoples...with their separate languages, religions, and cultures.”[10]
Contrary, John Bolton`s argument was “that states might have a legal obligation to protect their own populations, but insisted that the responsibility of the ‘international community’ to protect was merely a ‘moral responsibility’. He declared: ‘We do not accept that either the United Nations as a whole, or the Security Council, or individual states, have an obligation to intervene under international law.’ Bolton insisted that member states should therefore ‘avoid language that focuses on the obligation or responsibility of the international community and instead assert that we are prepared to take action’. The determination of what particular measures to adopt in specific cases, he insisted, ‘cannot be predetermined in the abstract but should remain a decision within the purview of the Security Council’.[11]
The wording of the United States said that the international community "must be prepared" to take part if the state does not fulfill its obligations, and that "the Security Council may out of necessity decide to take action." In other words, international action on the wording proposed by the United States will continue to be purely optional and at the discretion of the Security Council.
“The US amendment refers to a "moral responsibility" to help, but rejects the idea that there is an obligation.”[12]
It can be argued that, where there is morality involved, there may be self- interest involved as well. It can be said that there are two variations of morality. One would say that the states have a moral responsibility to protect other states in their domestic affairs without any self-interest or any other interest in that conflict. Other could say that the morality cannot be divorced from a self-interest. It can be said that the self- interest is not a moral concept but that the self- interest can be hidden behind the concept of the moral responsibility.
Bloomfield concludes that "we must somehow -- or decide whether we wish to -- distinguish between what "morality" commonly means and what it ought to mean, between what most people think and what we all ought to think. The same is true to "self-interest", since there is always a possible gap between what is truly good for a person, all things considered, and what that person wants most (or desires or prefers), even when given an optimal amount of time to reflect".[13] Sceptics would argue that there is no moral responsibility on its own that there will always be self-interest behind. With regard to the conflict and growing civil war in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea region, it can be said that all parties involved have self-interest in that conflict. Of course, they all announce that they act through the concept of responsibility to protect and moral responsibility, but it can be argued that there is a self-interest involved from all sides. Russia claims to help its Russian population in Crimea, but it does not say why they did not intervene in Crimea all those 20 years it has been separated from Russia. Also, US and Europe`s interests are clear enough- conflict reflects their interest in a very rich but poor country. Ukraine is a very prospective in the meaning that it has a lot of natural resources which lack the budget and investment. Also, it could be added that the situation in Ukraine, which lasts for over one year, repeats the past. There are again clearly seen two superpowers, such as Russia and US, both having interest in Ukraine. In this situation it is just impossible to say that all parties involved have a moral responsibility to protect Ukraine.
However, moral obligations in the Kantian tradition define the responsibilities as tradition or mandatory actions that we owe to all under any circumstances. They include, for example, the obligation to keep a promise or to be reliable. These liabilities have been classified as equity and fairness in the philosophical and psychological research. In psychology and philosophy it has come to be increasingly recognized that justice, care and solidarity are essential components of morality. In situations of conflicting claims involving the self the person interprets the meaning of the situation depending on the particularities of the situation, including both self-interest and obligations or responsibilities towards others. Persons vary in their sensitivity for the moral aspects of a conflict situation, both developmentally and differentially. When interpreting the meaning of a situation they may not spontaneously take into account the moral aspects of a situation but may be concerned with other selfish or pragmatic aspects. They may be sensitive to different types of obligations and responsibilities, and pragmatic-egoistic concerns of the self may achieve priority over obligations and responsibilities in situations in which moral and selfish concerns are in conflict.[14]
“We identify the role of the agent’s intention in the causes bringing about the event, and then are able to say whether or not the action is properly the agent’s own if he or she wanted it to be the case (that is, posits it as a purpose). Responsibility requires that subjects self-consciously know and freely choose their purposes for the predicate ‘mine’ to be attached to the action. An explanation of action requires no real notion of freedom, but an evaluation of action does. In dialogue, the actor would admit what he did as his own and his good and not the good of an alien will act through him (coercion, false consciousness, and so on). Free, moral action is impossible without a medium of immanently shared values and good rather than ground it. The subjective will cannot overcome conflicts of duty (whether generated by different kinds of duty or self-interest and duty), the moral point of view has to be constrained because it is infinitely powerful and can posit (or negate) any good whatsoever as universal good and the subject is unable to generate determinations of the will out of his reflective understanding, its abstractness needs to be overcome by objective determinations.”[15]
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries have determined that humanity should not jeopardize the sovereignty of individual states and should not restrict the right of governments over internal affairs. This position is in direct contradiction to the new humanitarian basis of American foreign policy. Refusal to support a resolution on Syria by the BRICS countries demonstrates a clash in ideologies that will help avoid another multilateral implementation of R2P.
“Responsibility to protect” should be seen as an example that the world is understood as the strength of which theory and practice are still dependent on the relationship between violence, subjectivity and war. Instead of abolishing war, peace-as-strength “Responsibility to protect” has secularized the war-in order to give up the war of national pride or self-centered power in favor of progressive wars for the lofty humanitarian motives. This kind of continuing violence with changing legitimations is a serious problem for the conceptualization of the world.
There is a lot of critic around the world regarding the concept of “responsibility to protect”. It can be argued that it has unclear status in world politics- the concept is neither the law nor fully rule. It lacks clear triggers and thresholds for action. It lacks of broad support - great powers are suspicious of their obligations, while small states are afraid to use it as an excuse to intervene and change the regime. It can be said that international community has a responsibility to protect other states and nationals of other states, but it can be argued that they have only moral responsibility to do so. As discussed, there can be a possibility that the moral responsibility cannot be separated from the self-interest.
________________
Bibliography:
. 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res., U.N. Doc., 2005
2. Magnuson, W: “The responsibility to protect and the decline of sovereignty: free speech protection under international law”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
3. Daalder I. & Stares P: “The UN's Responsibility to Protect”, The NY Times, 2008
4. Rawls, J: “The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited””, Harvard University Press, London, England (1999)
5. Bloomfield, P.: “Morality and Self-Interest”, Oxford University Press, 2007
6. Bolton, “Letter from John R. Bolton, Representative of the United States of America to the UN, to Jean Ping, President of the UN General Assembly”, 30 August 2005, available at: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/US_Boltonletter_R2P_30Aug05[1].pdf [Accessed: 14/01/2015]
7. The United Nations website http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml
[Accessed: 12/01/2015]
. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty:
“The Responsibility to Protect”, International Development Research Centre, Canada, 2001
. “The Responsibility to Protect” http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml
[Accessed: 12/01/2015]
. “Does the United States Have a Responsibility to Protect?”
http://www.aspenideas.org/session/does-united-states-have-responsibility-protect#colorbox=transcript [Accessed: 12/01/2015]
. Clanville, L: “The Responsibility to Protect Beyond Borders”, Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Australia, 2012
2. Evans, Gareth J:”The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All”, Brookings Institution Press, USA, 2009
3. Davis, R., Chief Rapporteur, Majekodunmi, B. and Smith-Höhn, J.: “Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities and the Responsibility to Protect: Challenges for the UN and the International Community in the 21st Century”, Rapporteurs The Responsibility to Protect Occasional Paper Series, 2008
4. ICRtoP U.S. tries to water down UN 'right to protection' reform; Global summit wants to add muscle to protect world's most vulnerable people The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario) September 8, 2005,Byline: Ernie Regehr http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/352-us-tries-to-water-down-un-right-to-protection-reform-global-summit-wants-to-add-muscle-to-protect-worlds-most-vulnerable-people [Accessed: 11.01.2015]
5. Keller, M., Edelstein, W., Krettenauer, T., Fang Fu-xi & Fang Ge: “Reasoning about Moral Obligations and Interpersonal Responsibilities in Different Cultural Contexts” https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/keller/moralobl/Kell_moralobl.pdf [Accessed: 11.01.2015]
6. David Rose: “Hegel’s theory of moral action, its place in his system and the “highest” right of the subject” http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/74/148#footnote-57134-17 [Accessed: 10.01.2015]
7. Miller, D.: “National Responsibility and Global Justice”, Oxford University Press, USA, 2007
8. Ignatieff, M: “Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry”, Princeton University Press, UK, 2003
9. Smith, R.K.M: “International Human Rights”, 5th edition, Oxford University Press, 2012
0. Schraeder, P.J: “African Politics and Society: A Mosaic in Transformation”, 2nd edition, Clark Baxter, 2004
1. Moyn, S: “The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History”, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, USA, 2010
________________
[1] Bloomfield, P.: “Morality and Self-Interest”, Oxford University Press, 2007
[2] The United Nations website http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml
[Accessed: 12/01/2015]
[3] Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty: “The Responsibility to Protect”, International Development Research Centre, Canada, 2001
[4] “The Responsibility to Protect” http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml
[Accessed: 12/01/2015]
[5] “Does the United States Have a Responsibility to Protect?”
http://www.aspenideas.org/session/does-united-states-have-responsibility-protect#colorbox=transcript [Accessed: 12/01/2015]
[6] Clanville, L: “The Responsibility to Protect Beyond Borders”, Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Australia, 2012
[7] Evans, Gareth J:”The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All”, Brookings Institution Press, USA, 2009.
[8] Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide
[9]Davis, R., Chief Rapporteur, Majekodunmi, B. and Smith-Höhn, J.: “Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities and the Responsibility to Protect: Challenges for the UN and the International Community in the 21st Century”, Rapporteurs The Responsibility to Protect Occasional Paper Series, 2008
[10] Rawls, J: “The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited””, Harvard University Press, London, England (1999)
[11] Bolton, “Letter from John R. Bolton, Representative of the United States of America to the UN, to Jean Ping, President of the UN General Assembly”, 30 August 2005, available at: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/US_Boltonletter_R2P_30Aug05[1].pdf [Accessed: 14/01/2015]
[12]ICRtoP U.S. tries to water down UN 'right to protection' reform; Global summit wants to add muscle to protect world's most vulnerable people The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario) September 8, 2005,Byline: Ernie Regehr http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/352-us-tries-to-water-down-un-right-to-protection-reform-global-summit-wants-to-add-muscle-to-protect-worlds-most-vulnerable-people [Accessed: 11.01.2015]
[13] Bloomfield, P: “Morality and Self-Interest”, Oxford University Press, 2007
[14] Keller, M., Edelstein, W., Krettenauer, T., Fang Fu-xi & Fang Ge: “Reasoning about Moral Obligations and Interpersonal Responsibilities in Different Cultural Contexts”
https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/keller/moralobl/Kell_moralobl.pdf
[Accessed: 11.01.2015]
[15] Rose, D: “Hegel’s theory of moral action, its place in his system and the “highest” right of the subject” http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/74/148#footnote-57134-17
[Accessed: 10.01.2015]
by
daigabarzdinainboxlv (student)
