Document Library

The Responsibility to Protect

Author: International Commission on Intervention and State
Date: 2001
Size: 91 pages (434KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

When, if ever, is it appropriate for states to take coercive - and in particular military - action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state? This paper, by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, argues that where a population is suffering serious harm and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.

The responsibility to protect lies in obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty, the responsibility of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security, human rights and human protection declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law and the developing practice of states.

The responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities; to prevent, react and rebuild. It is important to address both the root and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk. States should respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution and in extreme cases military intervention. States must provide full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert.

Prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it. Military intervention for human protection purposes is an exceptional and extraordinary measure. To be warranted, there must be serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur.

• The primary purpose of the intervention must be to halt or avert human suffering. These should be multilateral operations, clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims concerned.
• Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for prevention or peaceful resolution has been explored.
• The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the human protection objective.
• There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering, and the consequences of inaction must be worse than the action itself.
• There is no better or more appropriate body than the United Nations Security Council to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes.
• Security Council authorisation should be sought prior to any military intervention action being carried out. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority, but to make the Security Council work better than it has.

Operational principles should include:

• A clear and unambiguous mandate at all times and resources to match.
• Common military approach among involved partners.
• of limitations, incrementalism and gradualism in the application of force, the objective being protection of a population, not defeat of a state.
• Rules of engagement that fit the operational concept, are precise, reflect the principle of proportionality and involve total adherence to international humanitarian law. Acceptance that force protection cannot become the principal objective.
• Maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organisations.