RSS

The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) represents a dramatic shift in the post Westphalian nation state. States have voluntarily accepted the right of the international community to intervene in cases where governments are unable to stop or are themselves perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, mass atrocities and genocide. Sceptics of the doctrine like Mahmood Mamdani argue that the doctrine will be abused by large powers for their own self-interest in continental Africa.

This paper will oppose the argument that RtoP and international justice are merely facades for a larger western agenda to recolonise Africa. Firstly, RtoP represents a significant movement away from the traditional notion of sovereignty. Mamdani's assertion that the concept was born out of Western capitals and forced down the throats of Africans is false. Secondly, RtoP has advanced the norms of international justice, particularly the International Criminal Court. Mamdani and his colleagues argue that the ICC is a western court designed to try Africans, but it is this group who were heavily involved in the creation of the court and its subsequent operations. Thirdly, this paper argues that Mamdani and his colleagues misrepresent the Darfur conflict in his book "Saviors and Survivors" as a conflict between Arabs and Africans, and concludes that they have oversimplified the RtoP doctrine as a "neo-colonial" project.

Amal Varghese is studying for a Masters in International Relations at the University of Melbourne. He is a human rights advocate and is affiliated with the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect in New York.

February 22, 2012

Amal Varghese, University of Melbourne Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, (9)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

For additional reading- Please feel free to follow me at johnavarghese where i post links up to various human rights issues relating to RtoP.

I also highly reccomend this piece by Gareth Evans, a key architect of the Responsibility to Protect- http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/evans13/English

February 23, 2012

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (728)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Amal,

thanks for sharing with us. I can agree to a large extend to your claims - though I would say states act upon interests, not humanitarian reasons, both can coincide in some instances and generally on the international level there is room for demanding proactive engagement for humanitarian reasons - the Darfur conflict is a perfect example to illustrate your point. In that case the cynicism of the accuastion of neo-colonialism becomes obvious.

February 25, 2012

Johannes Steger, Università di Bologna, Bronze Contributor (18)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Well, great powers will probably never be subject of R2P, so Amal may be right that it will have an effect not only on Africans, but on weak states in general.
I would distinguish between the ICC and R2P, as the former might well be a tool to overcome atrocities perpetrated in civil war. However, it has not gone unnoticed that the USA did not ratify the ICC-Treaty. R2P, instead, on the paper is a noble evolution of Westphalian principles, as evidenced by Amal. The problems start by its implementation. When intervene, how, and on which side? There is no guarantee that intervention will stop the bloodshed. It has been argued, e.g., that the NATO-bombing of Kosovo and Serbia in 1999 have been the real trigger of the mutual genocide. Moreover, in most of cases one cannot distinguish “bad” from “good” guys. Some press-agencies from Libya let suppose a lot of atrocities perpetrated by the “rebels” on Ghadaffi supporters. Furthermore, who should intervene? The AU may be underfunded, but what about the UN? They face the same problem, as showed the Rwandan genocide. People who put their hope in UN-protection paid with their lives, as save havens became save for slaughter.

February 25, 2012

Amal Varghese

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Johannes, you're correct in that the UN is also defunct in its ability to halt mass atrocity. But it is the best international organization equipped to deal with such atrocities due to a variety of reasons; funding, moral capital and great power strength.

Are there alternatives to the Security Council? Not any serious ones at this point. Regional organizations are certainly developing technical and logistical competence, but are still largely under funded and incompetent.

You are also correct that neo-colonial interests are not at stake; but rather, that they're merely state interests and in a Westphalian system, all states are forced to look out for their own interests. And I would rebutt your assertion that weak states are forced to do as the powerful states wish, this Thycidides concept that " the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what the must" does not match realitiy, given the EQUAL sovereignty of every state.

February 26, 2012

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (728)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Amal,

I must strongly object your assumption of equal sovereignty for two reasons:

First, sovereignty is firsthand a concept that is realiter implemented via coersion. Question is coercion of whom, groups, institutions, state-related etc - that is the reason why in many case we have to refer to terms such as "limited statehood". In reality, sovereinty appears oftenly quite fishy and blurred.

Second, first level Hobbesian sovereignty continues to second level sovereignty in the state of many sovereigns that have no sovereign power above them. Only one can be sovereign, many against each other are in the same state of natural anarchy as the individuals on the first level. This is still an unresolved question and because of this dilemma, on an international level there cannot be such a thing as law other then as a representation of the power relations of the actors behind it.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org