The Pros And Cons Of R2P Initiatives

737 Words3 Pages
INTROCUTION To translate the R2P principles to deeds will require serious commitment from all the governments who unanimously affirmed at the 2005 World Summit Outcome that “each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” (UN world summit, 2005). To relies a credible implementation, it is necessary that Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome which goes to the real issue of operationalizing the responsibility to protect (widely referred to as “R2P” in English) is sincerely adhered to by all. This brief paper will cover current R2P debate and the complex issue of implementing the R2P pillars which are: Pillar one the protection responsibilities of the State (sect. II). Pillar two International assistance and capacity-building (sect. III). Pillar three Timely and decisive response (sect. IV). These Pillars are developed to ensure that States do not cause harm to their own citizens and cause these four specified crimes and violations: Genocide, War crimes, Ethnic cleansing and Crimes against humanity. However, if it becomes clear that a State is failing its…show more content…
There are different schools of thought in how R2P should be implemented and whether it can help solve problems and produce the desired outcome. This paper accepts the fact that overall, R2P still remains legally contested. There are cases where it has been pointed out R2P was not necessary. A good example of this debate is the International community’s intervention into Libya. The most controversial aspect of R2P is its Pillar III, which relates to the use of coercive military force. The UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011), which authorized the use of force in Libya, marked the first time the UNSC invoked this Pillar
Open Document