The responsibility to protect, inspired by Kant's idea of world citizenship, acknowledged that all peoples of the world are part of the universal society and that international rights have been transformed into universal rights of humanity.[1] Increasing internal conflicts around the world, the inability to protect its own citizens from these conflicts or to be the perpetrator of the crime itself the status and status of non-state actors (individuals and armed groups) as a result, their rights have become one of the most important issues of international law. The idea that the sovereignty, which puts the national interests of the fully independent state in the foreground with the idea of protecting human rights and the right to peace, is inviolable the intervention of the international community in the state sovereignty, along with the legitimacy debate has arisen.
In 2001, a report prepared by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) led by the Canadian Government. Without authorization of NATO in Kosovo intervention and concern about doing nothing in Rwanda Commission has encouraged its members in this regard.[2] In its Final Report dated December 3, 2001, ICISS rejected the absolute sovereignty of states over their countries and the complete autonomy of governments with the concept of R2P; on the contrary, it sought an international consensus that sovereignty imposes responsibility as well as rights. If a state fails to protect its own people, it cannot have the sovereign right not to intervene.[3] Failure to apply in cases where the protection responsibility conditions are fulfilled, it raises the concern that the international system will be harmed due to violation of the prohibition of the use of force against sovereignty.
In addition, ICISS is responsible for protecting the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. It suggested that the basic principles of its approach be adopted and embodied, that permanent members seek compromise so that they do not apply for a veto to the Security Council.[4] At the UN World Summit for UN reform in 2005 leaders discussed the principle of responsibility to protect. 2005 UN Summit in his final text, it defends the people of each state from genocide, war crimes, ethnicity that it is responsible for cleaning and protecting from crimes against humanity, this that the responsibility includes preventing the aforementioned crimes, that the international community will assist states in fulfilling this responsibility and that the UN is regulated that it will support by establishing an early warning system.[5] States the international community to protect their people from these crimes and the UN Treaty VI. and VII. suitable in accordance with departments prevent peoples from genocide, war by diplomatic, humanitarian and other crimes against ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity will help. The main point it can bring is the responsibility defined for the international community. Responsibility for effective and timely response, let alone the international community's prevention responsibilities measures up to the use of force within the scope of legally, putting human rights within the framework of the protection of its potential it makes a difference. In this context, if national authorities clearly fail or fall short in protection Security Council VII. within the framework of the chapter, the relevant regional will act collectively in cooperation with organizations. UN Treaty and protection responsibility to the General Assembly according to the principles of international law development and the outbreak of armed conflict and crisis building capacity to protect the public from those crimes in previous cases will be needed for.[6] Responsibility for prevention, contrary to what was included in the 2005 Summit Outcome Document first, which includes the obligations of the state, the international community and regional organizations and it is organized as a responsibility that unites the second column.
R2P is essentially no different from humanitarian intervention. Human the intervention briefly; the citizens of a state the use of force to protect against widespread human rights violations, and possible to define as a threat of force. 2009 General in board discussions, Noam Chomsky said that the R2P was the intervention's cousin 'and Tuckydides said, "The strong do what they can, and the weak will accept what they have to accept." she evaluated with the maxim.[7] Responsibility to protect from humanitarian intervention instead of the unprecedented "humanitarian intervention" the term "responsibility to protect" it was argued that there was only a linguistic change.
Humanitarian intervention, intervention in the internal affairs of the states of the UN Treaty and was deemed against international law for violating prohibitions on the use of force. It has also been criticized for being illegitimate. UN Treaty 2/4 article, “All members, in their international relations, against territorial integrity or political independence and the UN's threats or force in any way that cannot be copyrighted for the purposes of they avoid threats of use or resort to force. " the use of force is prohibited, only in Article 51 of the Treaty. Security Council intervention in case of self-defense until and VII. Threat of peace, corruption and the use of force with the decision of the Security Council in cases of attack is allowed. Using force or threatening is a general prohibition and exceptions it was counted in the UN Treaty without being open to interpretation. Of these exceptions there is no humanitarian intervention or protection responsibility among. UN Treaty Article 2/7 “No provision of this Treaty is permits the United Nations to interfere with the affairs within its jurisdiction, nor does its members have a manner of settling such matters in accordance with this Treaty, it compels to bind; However, VII. Compulsion derided in the department. This principle will in no way prejudice the implementation of the measures. "provision has brought. This article, according to the classical understanding of sovereignty, in international law states have the right to solve their own internal and external problems and expresses that its sovereignty is closed to the subjects of other states law. Kelsen also mentioned that article 2/7 contains two different rules in a similar way. One is the prohibition of UN intervention in matters that fall under national jurisdiction as of the essence of the state, the other is that it frees its members to compromise within the framework of the Treaty. The first rule restricts the authority of the Organization and prohibits its intervention, the second restricts the obligations of member states.[8]
Another important point stated in the report is that protection responsibility is built on three separate responsibilities. Accordingly, the first responsibility is the responsibility to prevent, the second is the responsiveness, and the third is the responsibility to rebuild. The acceptance of the responsibility of conservation by the international community at the 2005 World Summit- in the years that followed, both in the prevention and response phases. In crises within the scope of R2P, a timely and effective R2P application it was not enough to occur. Ongoing large scale in various parts of the world Flag of Annan as UN Secretary General due to collective human rights violations- Ban Ki-moon took over the first in 2009 titled "Implementation of Protection Responsibility" published the comprehensive R2P report. Following the unanimous acceptance of R2P in the UN General Assembly, in 2006 the norm was. Gareth Evans, one of the leading entrepreneurs and co-chairs of ICISS, commented: “what we have witnessed in the last five years, almost real-time a new rule of customary international law, which may ultimately be a new rule of law, it is the emergence of the international norm." [9]
Change occurs in international law due to the construction of the protection responsibility norm. The main point it can bring is the responsibility defined for the international community. Responsibility for effective and timely response, let alone the international community's prevention responsibilities measures up to the use of force within the scope of legally, putting human rights within the framework of the protection of its potential it makes a difference. In some cases, interventions can happen without a UN Security Council resolution. It resulted in the execution, and eventually led to discussions of legality and legitimacy. (the example of Kosovo). In this context, it is reached with an understanding of responsibility to protect abandoning desired arbitrary practices and, within the framework of necessity, to act jointly and timely in all situations without exception. To this purpose as an alternative to the Security Council in the ICISS report, the UN General Intervention through the decision of the Board and through coalitions formed by the voluntary states[10] but this recommendation was not included in paragraph 139. Hence although existing UN mechanisms can be mobilized in the R2P crises although this decision is entirely due to the Security Council and basically the five permanent members of the Council. It depends on the agreement and / or not exercising the right of veto.
Since 2005 Burma, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Congo Democratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Guinea, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Zimbabwe and more recently Syria and the crises in Iraq were among the events examined within the scope of R2P. The international community quickly intervened in Guinea and Kenya from these events and has successfully implemented its responsibility in the prevention phase (in the framework of the second column) [11]. In other cases, the R2P is effectively exercised. While it is not possible to mention, exceptionally, in the cases of Ivory Coast and Libya Military interventions were made that would fall under the third column of R2P is seen. Both in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit in the language used, as well as in the R2P reports of the UN Secretary-General. As will be argued, the individual responsibilities of states are not subject to existing international law regulations. Security Council monopoly for the effective and objective implementation of R2P and legal mechanisms should be put into effect. In this context, R2P's International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (UCM) and strengthening the courts on the basis of their powers and capabilities can help prevent their evaluation within the framework of bilateral relations.
Although studies on conservation responsibility seem ideal in theory, it is understood from the discussions that it will not yield such results in practice. Conceptually, even R2P is a norm that preserves its importance, as it is shaped in the UN its implementation is directly related to the political will of states and the attitudes of permanent members of the Security Council strong against large-scale human rights violations and it is far from being an effective solution. Liberals, who do not consider using force as a remedy in discussions of the legitimacy of international community intervention in state sovereignty, prefer cooperation, while realists justify using force when the conditions are met in their approach to state security. Therefore, the anarchic we are currently in within the framework of reforms that are difficult but not impossible to implement in the international order new regulations should be made and by giving a legal status to R2P. The abuse of the norm should be prevented and both individual states and to fulfill the responsibilities of the international community should be provided by mechanisms. The concept of "responsibility to protect", which sets two rules for the benefit of the world community and the international community, actually means protection in terms of the international community. The fact that it regards it as a right, not as a responsibility, and that this right belongs to the states shows that the norm approaches to the international community.
Bibliography:
‘2005 World Summit Outcome A/60/L.1’ (2005) para 138.
‘——’ (2005) para 139.
Alicia L.Bannon, ‘The Responsibility to Protect: The UN World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism’ (2005) Vol.115 The Yale Law Journal 1162
Chataway T, ‘Towards Normative Consensus on Responsibility to Protect’ (2007) 16 Griffith Law Review 207
Gareth Evans, ‘From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect’ (2016)
Hans Kelsen, ‘The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems’ The London Institute of World Affairs 770
‘ICISS’ (2001)
Naom Chomsky, ‘“The Responsibility to Protect” UN General Assembly’ (2009)
Pinar Gözen Ercan, ‘Debating the Future of the “Responsibility to Protect”’ (2016)
Serena K. Sharma, ‘Toward a Global Responsibility to Protect: Setbacks on the Path to Implementation’ (2010) 16 125
‘The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’ (Global centre for the responsibility to protect 2001)
[1] Teresa Chataway, ‘Towards Normative Consensus on Responsibility to Protect’ (2007) 16 Griffith Law Review 207.
[2] Serena K. Sharma, ‘Toward a Global Responsibility to Protect: Setbacks on the Path to Implementation’ (2010) 16 125.
[3] Alicia L.Bannon, ‘The Responsibility to Protect: The UN World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism’ (2005) Vol.115 The Yale Law Journal 1162.
[4] ‘The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’ (Global centre for the responsibility to protect 2001).
[5] ‘2005 World Summit Outcome A/60/L.1’ (2005) para 138.
[6] ‘2005 World Summit Outcome A/60/L.1’ (2005) para 139.
[7] Naom Chomsky, ‘“The Responsibility to Protect” UN General Assembly’ (2009).
[8] Hans Kelsen, ‘The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems’ The London Institute of World Affairs 770.
[9] Gareth Evans, ‘From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect’ (2016).
[10] ‘ICISS’ (2001).
[11] Pinar Gözen Ercan, ‘Debating the Future of the “Responsibility to Protect”’ (2016).