Humanitarian issues have temporarily been downgraded on the public policy agenda but military interventions for human protection purposes will no doubt be required in the future. This study, by the University of New York, critically analyses the framework for responding to such challenges set out in ‘The Responsibility To Protect’ written by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). It argues that this report is not as forward-looking as it might be and identifies some of its shortcomings.
In spite of normative progress, we hardly are able to rescue all war victims. With the possible exception of genocide, there is no legal and certainly no political obligation to act, but a moral one. Invariably, the moral urge translates into a limited political momentum and a sliding scale of commitments, reflecting the stark international political reality that we rescue some, but not all war-affected populations. When humanitarian and strategic interests coincide, a window of opportunity opens for coalitions of the willing to act on the humanitarian impulse in the Security Council, or elsewhere. Recent experience provides evidence of this impulse but not of an ‘imperative’. The humanitarian imperative would entail an obligation to treat all victims similarly and react to all crises consistently – in effect, to deny the relevance of politics.
The humanitarian impulse is permissive; the humanitarian imperative would be peremptory. The Responsibility to Protect contains normative ideas for which many people in the multilateral and humanitarian communities have been waiting. However, there are a number of shortcomings with the ICISS approach.
- The concerns of the most vehement critics, especially developing countries, are misplaced, because the problem is too little humanitarian intervention, not too much.
- The danger that the concept of the responsibility to protect might become a Trojan Horse to be used by the great powers to intervene is fundamentally incorrect; rather, intervention by the USA in its pre-emptive or preventive war mode is the most pressing concern.
- The notion of reforming the UN Security Council is an illusion; the real challenge is to identify crises where Washington’s tactical multilateralism kicks in.
Expectations to respect rights are increasingly placed on political authorities. The report provides an accurate snapshot of mainstream views about sovereignty as responsibility.
- As well as pursuing elections, weapons inspections, other examples where US interests would be fostered more through cooperation include fighting terrorism, infectious diseases, monitoring of human rights and criminal tribunals.
- For all these undertakings, more than lip service to the interests of other countries is required. Multilateralism is not an end in itself, but working through the UN can help achieve crucial US objectives.
- Critics and skeptics of humanitarian intervention should be less preoccupied that military action will be taken too often for insufficient humanitarian reasons, but rather more concerned that it will be taken too rarely for the right ones.
- If the responsibility to protect is to flourish, the United States must be on board with humanitarian intervention.
