CYIL 2010

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ȃ NEW BEGINNING OR END OF THE ROAD … debates, though closely related in substance, became separated from a formal point of view: the one on humanitarian intervention continued to assess the pros and cons of a new unilateral exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, while the debate on R2P focused on other means of preventing and reacting to humanitarian crises. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, this solution may appear reasonable, at least on a short-term basis. Yet, when assessed from a more theoretical and/or long-term perspective, it reveals considerable weaknesses. The most fundamental of these consists of the fact that it (again) leaves un-addressed the original underlying dilemma of how to react when a state manifestly fails to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and the UN Security Council is unwilling or unable to act in an adequate manner. Is an individual state, a group of states or a regional organization entitled in such a situation to intervene without the UN mandate? And if so, under what conditions and with which restrictions? The 2005 version of the R2P concept does not seek to answer these questions. It simply hopes to discard them as irrelevant by placing emphasis on (and faith in) the responsibility of the territorial state, the smooth functioning of the UN mechanism, and the effectiveness of preventive measures. This leads to a paradoxical situation in which a concept which was originally created to address a certain dilemma suddenly starts to ignore the possibility that any such dilemma could arise. Yet, as the developments in Darfur and other areas have clearly shown over the past few years, the dilemma remains as real as ever and cannot be simply ignored as being unimportant. 23 Late 2000s: Indirect Exclusion of Humanitarian Intervention by R2P The late 2000s witnessed a rapid evolution in the area of R2P. The concept, now devoid of any connection with unilateral humanitarian intervention, was gaining increasing support on the international scene. In 2006, a reference to “provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” 24 appeared in UN Security Council Resolution 1674 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Later on that year, a similar reference was added to the preamble of Resolution 1706 25 dealing with the situation in Darfur. In December 2008, the Security Council held its first informal meeting on R2P. The meeting showed that states were still seriously divided with regard to the possibility of a unilateral use of force for humanitarian purposes. This, together with a narrow mandate confined to the R2P definition in the 2005 Outcome Document, prevented the UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect, Edward

23 See N. J. Wheeler, Operationalising the Responsibility to Protect. The Continuing Debate over where Authority should be Located for the Use of Force, NUPI Report Responsibility to Protect No. 3, 2008. 24 UN Doc. S/RES/1674 (2006), Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 28 April 2006, par. 4. 25 UN Doc. S/RES/1706 (2006), Reports of the Secretary-General on Sudan, 31 August 2006.

83