Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Responsibility To Protect Outline

Law Outlines > International Humanitarian Law Outlines

This is an extract of our Responsibility To Protect document, which we sell as part of our International Humanitarian Law Outlines collection written by the top tier of U.C. Berkeley School Of Law (Boalt Hall) students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Humanitarian Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

R2P 1) R2P = Responsibility To Protect 2) History: Started as "Humanitarian Intervention," which was not a legal doctrine, but an advocacy tool. a) Embodied a RIGHT to force b) 1990s political debate (lots of French support) c) Normative agreement that we shouldn't have genocide or war crimes (other treaties) but how do we enforce it? Humanitarians looked to force. Western led coalitions (like NATO) were asked to intervene when egregious events occurred (like Rwanda). d) Legal problem i) UN Charter 2.1: sovereignty and equality of all members. (1)No allowance of "intervention" in the Charter ii) Lots of debate (1)Need for Humanitarian intervention is great (2)But legal basis is so contested (3)And practice is problematic and political e) Examples i) 1989 US intervention in Panama: we intervened at Panama's request, but only at the request of the person that was in power because we got them into power. It was part of a coup. (1)Common problem of "good faith" ii) 2003 French intervention in Ivory Coast: France went in at request of government and later got SC authorization, but by that time the rebels had taken over. iii) US intervention in Nicaragua, where we assisted the rebels. iv) 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo: Former Yugoslovia breaks up and there are a bunch of wars. Kosovo ends up as part of former Yugoslovia. Some Serbs live there, mostly Albanians. Serbs in Belgrade attack Albanians in Kosovo. Basically, the federal government was bombing itself. SC took no action because of Russia (who typically backs the serbs). Ethnic cleansing. NATO bombs Belgrade. (1)No legal basis: SC declined authorization, clearly not self-defense (2)But many still found it justified. NATO killed 500 civillians, Serbs had killed between 2,000-11,000 civilians. (3)Serbs went to ICJ and said they had been a victim of active aggression. ICJ ducked: said there was no jurisdiction because Serbia wasn't a member state of the UN. v) 2003 US attack on Iraq with a whole mish mash of legal justifications (that it was R2P, that we had SC authorization, and that it was self defense)

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Humanitarian Law Outlines.