233
destruction of Earth’s ecological integrity that violates every precept of our common humanity?’
What is the essence of R2P and how did it respond to the problem of state sovereignty? Traditionally, humanitarian intervention was treated as conflicting with the
sovereign right of non-interference with the internal affairs of states. R2P moved
beyond this sovereign rights paradigm and reconceptualised state sovereignty (in
the context of humanitarian matters) as the legal responsibility of states to protect
people within their territory from certain harms. Initial work on the scope of R2P
included natural and environmental catastrophes causing loss of life as a trigger for
R2P (ICISS 2001), however states subsequently limited its scope to genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This is considered the first
pillar of R2P. The second pillar extends to the international community which has
the responsibility to assist and encourage states to meet their responsibility to protect. If states cannot or will not protect people within their territory, the third pillar
comes into play; an international process can legally mandate other states to exercise collective responsibility including intervening to protect people within another
states territory (Thakur 2019 and Global Centre for R2P).
It must be acknowledged that many significant and important criticisms exist
concerning key aspects of R2P, including its lack of proper implementation in recent
humanitarian crises (e.g.; Libya in 2011 and Syria). However, the focus for the purposes of this chapter is on the fundamental normative change achieved by R2P and
the international process by which this came about.
R2P has been described as representing a ‘fundamental conceptual’ or ‘tectonic
shift’ in state sovereignty (Brunnée and Toope 2008, p. 128; Slaughter 2005, p. 627).
Referring to a 2004 High Level panel report Slaughter comments: “In two scant
paragraphs the panel redefines sovereignty itself for all UN member states. These
paragraphs accomplish a tectonic shift, reinterpreting the very act of signing the
[UN] Charter in ways that will create a new legal and diplomatic discourse about
member states’ obligations to their own people and to one another.” (Slaughter
2005, p. 627). Gareth Evans, a co-author of the panel report highlights several key
elements of this reframing and [notes]: (1) the language ‘responsibility to protect’
rather than ‘right to intervene’ required opponents to rethink their arguments to
engage with the issue; (2) it increased the number of actors potentially responsible
and redistributed responsibility. If a state could not protect people within its jurisdiction, the international community had a responsibility to assist. If this was not
adequate then responsibility ‘trips upwards’ to the international community; and (3)
prevention is a key element with the international community sharing responsibility
to prevent humanitarian crises (Evans 2015).
In short, R2P institutes a critical normative shift which requires states to behave
differently and it creates a system of international accountability to ensure that they
do so (Thakur 2019; Deng 2010). Further, some consider “no idea has moved faster
in the international normative arena” than R2P (Weiss and Kuele 2011, p. 1).
Critically, it did not emerge via the sort of consensus treaty process followed by the
GPE but was adopted through a very different route. What can we learn from this?
The next section outlines selected factors considered central to the success of R2P
Opportunity Within Failure: Can the Global Pact for the Environment Learn…
destruction of Earth’s ecological integrity that violates every precept of our common humanity?’
What is the essence of R2P and how did it respond to the problem of state sovereignty? Traditionally, humanitarian intervention was treated as conflicting with the
sovereign right of non-interference with the internal affairs of states. R2P moved
beyond this sovereign rights paradigm and reconceptualised state sovereignty (in
the context of humanitarian matters) as the legal responsibility of states to protect
people within their territory from certain harms. Initial work on the scope of R2P
included natural and environmental catastrophes causing loss of life as a trigger for
R2P (ICISS 2001), however states subsequently limited its scope to genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This is considered the first
pillar of R2P. The second pillar extends to the international community which has
the responsibility to assist and encourage states to meet their responsibility to protect. If states cannot or will not protect people within their territory, the third pillar
comes into play; an international process can legally mandate other states to exercise collective responsibility including intervening to protect people within another
states territory (Thakur 2019 and Global Centre for R2P).
It must be acknowledged that many significant and important criticisms exist
concerning key aspects of R2P, including its lack of proper implementation in recent
humanitarian crises (e.g.; Libya in 2011 and Syria). However, the focus for the purposes of this chapter is on the fundamental normative change achieved by R2P and
the international process by which this came about.
R2P has been described as representing a ‘fundamental conceptual’ or ‘tectonic
shift’ in state sovereignty (Brunnée and Toope 2008, p. 128; Slaughter 2005, p. 627).
Referring to a 2004 High Level panel report Slaughter comments: “In two scant
paragraphs the panel redefines sovereignty itself for all UN member states. These
paragraphs accomplish a tectonic shift, reinterpreting the very act of signing the
[UN] Charter in ways that will create a new legal and diplomatic discourse about
member states’ obligations to their own people and to one another.” (Slaughter
2005, p. 627). Gareth Evans, a co-author of the panel report highlights several key
elements of this reframing and [notes]: (1) the language ‘responsibility to protect’
rather than ‘right to intervene’ required opponents to rethink their arguments to
engage with the issue; (2) it increased the number of actors potentially responsible
and redistributed responsibility. If a state could not protect people within its jurisdiction, the international community had a responsibility to assist. If this was not
adequate then responsibility ‘trips upwards’ to the international community; and (3)
prevention is a key element with the international community sharing responsibility
to prevent humanitarian crises (Evans 2015).
In short, R2P institutes a critical normative shift which requires states to behave
differently and it creates a system of international accountability to ensure that they
do so (Thakur 2019; Deng 2010). Further, some consider “no idea has moved faster
in the international normative arena” than R2P (Weiss and Kuele 2011, p. 1).
Critically, it did not emerge via the sort of consensus treaty process followed by the
GPE but was adopted through a very different route. What can we learn from this?
The next section outlines selected factors considered central to the success of R2P
Opportunity Within Failure: Can the Global Pact for the Environment Learn…