236
The ICISS held over 200 meetings and round tables in almost all continents and
major capitals, engaging all sectors and seeking a cross-section of views (Thakur
2011). These consultations enabled it to listen to concerns and fears, ‘road test’
ideas and recommendations as they emerged, and enhance legitimacy for the final
report (Thakur 2019). Engagement with developing states was particularly important given their newly attained sovereignty and negative experiences of colonialism,
including ‘not very benign interventions’ (Evans 2015). In short, the ICISS had
fulfilled its mandate to promote comprehensive debate on the issues, and foster
global political consensus on how to move from polemics towards action, particularly through the UN (ICISS 2001, p. 81).
In contrast, the GPE was not the product of an inclusive process but rather represented an elite view very closely associated with France, and later EU member
states. Proponents highlight the inclusiveness of the drafting process and the support of 135 jurists to a ‘Jurists’ Call for a Global Pact for the Environment’, representing 40 nations. However, closer inspection reveals that 65% were from Europe
and the USA, 9% from Africa, 12% from Asia and 13% from South America. The
majority of signatories were from France (23) and the USA (15). A major report
supporting the GPE was in the form of an expert legal document (Aguila and
Viñuales 2019b). This reality, together with French political ambition as a champion of multi-lateralism (President Macron) and the Paris Agreement (Fabius), raise
legitimacy issues. These factors together with the vote on UNGA Res 72/277 (discussed above), criticism over initial lack of engagement with the G77 plus China
and a sense of some states that they were not being listened to, played into fears,
especially those from the Global South. These fears included a loss of sovereignty,
additional unfair burdens and double standards (ENB 2019c, p. 11). In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that many states were unwilling to support a
legally binding instrument.
4.4 The Precedents
R2P was directly connected to a contemporary understanding of the role of the State
and the argument that: “[l]iving up to the responsibilities of sovereignty becomes in
effect the best guarantee of sovereignty.” (Deng 2010, p. 364). As noted above, it
was also embedded in a modern reading of the UN Charter, together with the development of human rights within the UN system. However, R2P also employed constitutional precedents from the African and Indian continents and in this way
developed legitimacy. R2P was “as rooted firmly in indigenous values and traditions
than in abstract notions of sovereignty derived from European thought and practice.
Many traditional Asian cultures stress the symbolic link between loyalty of citizens
to sovereigns and duties owed by kings to subjects.” (Thakur 2011, p. 211). Thakur
also highlights the alignment between R2P and traditional African understanding of
the duties of rulers towards subjects (Thakur 2011, p. 211).
P. Taylor
The ICISS held over 200 meetings and round tables in almost all continents and
major capitals, engaging all sectors and seeking a cross-section of views (Thakur
2011). These consultations enabled it to listen to concerns and fears, ‘road test’
ideas and recommendations as they emerged, and enhance legitimacy for the final
report (Thakur 2019). Engagement with developing states was particularly important given their newly attained sovereignty and negative experiences of colonialism,
including ‘not very benign interventions’ (Evans 2015). In short, the ICISS had
fulfilled its mandate to promote comprehensive debate on the issues, and foster
global political consensus on how to move from polemics towards action, particularly through the UN (ICISS 2001, p. 81).
In contrast, the GPE was not the product of an inclusive process but rather represented an elite view very closely associated with France, and later EU member
states. Proponents highlight the inclusiveness of the drafting process and the support of 135 jurists to a ‘Jurists’ Call for a Global Pact for the Environment’, representing 40 nations. However, closer inspection reveals that 65% were from Europe
and the USA, 9% from Africa, 12% from Asia and 13% from South America. The
majority of signatories were from France (23) and the USA (15). A major report
supporting the GPE was in the form of an expert legal document (Aguila and
Viñuales 2019b). This reality, together with French political ambition as a champion of multi-lateralism (President Macron) and the Paris Agreement (Fabius), raise
legitimacy issues. These factors together with the vote on UNGA Res 72/277 (discussed above), criticism over initial lack of engagement with the G77 plus China
and a sense of some states that they were not being listened to, played into fears,
especially those from the Global South. These fears included a loss of sovereignty,
additional unfair burdens and double standards (ENB 2019c, p. 11). In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that many states were unwilling to support a
legally binding instrument.
4.4 The Precedents
R2P was directly connected to a contemporary understanding of the role of the State
and the argument that: “[l]iving up to the responsibilities of sovereignty becomes in
effect the best guarantee of sovereignty.” (Deng 2010, p. 364). As noted above, it
was also embedded in a modern reading of the UN Charter, together with the development of human rights within the UN system. However, R2P also employed constitutional precedents from the African and Indian continents and in this way
developed legitimacy. R2P was “as rooted firmly in indigenous values and traditions
than in abstract notions of sovereignty derived from European thought and practice.
Many traditional Asian cultures stress the symbolic link between loyalty of citizens
to sovereigns and duties owed by kings to subjects.” (Thakur 2011, p. 211). Thakur
also highlights the alignment between R2P and traditional African understanding of
the duties of rulers towards subjects (Thakur 2011, p. 211).
P. Taylor