Responsibility to ProtectAs the sovereign powers of states allow them to neglect their responsibility to protect their population, R2P places a secondary obligation for international assistance.
I feel like this could be expressed a little more clearly; who does the obligation lie with? That's the main piece of info that's missing for me. The idea is still clear though This reform rose in response to the controversy that raged over wether the international community had the ‘right of international intervention’ in the conflict of Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Nice piece of historical context. Adoption of the new doctrine represented an international commitment by states to prevent and react to grave crisis wherever they may occur. R2P’s Pillar Two constitutes that the international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfil its primary responsibility. However, a speech given at the General Assembly Thematic Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect 2009 outline the issues in R2P as an example of ‘dominant law making’ as the notions of ‘manifestly failing’ significantly sharpened the UN Charter Article 42.
This feels like a critique without substance right now, since you've not done any analysis yourself, if you know what I mean? I'd prefer you to make your own points about effectiveness first, give me an example, THEN back it up with this sort of secondary evidence. Yet, the R2P’s effectiveness is demonstrated within Libya after the UNSC successfully ordered creasers of Gaddafi strongholds and enforced a ‘no fly zone’.
How does this demonstrate effectiveness? Effective, why? Ramesh Thanker states in ‘Has R2P worked in Libya 2011 that, ‘The outcome is a triumph and first and foremost for the citizen soldiers. It is a triumph secondary for R2P’. It is successful as it abolishes the enforceability restraint that was perviously associated with the UNSC.
Cool! There we go, excellent, would you have an example of this constraint manifesting elsewhere? Whilst R2P was effective in Libya, Syria represents a contemporary issue that has been ineffectively responded to, largely due to consistent veto’s by SC members.
Thus demonstrating the ineffectiveness of R2P; remember to consistently link to the main idea explicitly! According to the Telegraph article, ‘UN no longer fit for purpose after Syria says Amnesty’ 2012 the Amnesty Security General states that the UN is ‘tired out of step and anachronistic’ as Russia has vetoed sanctions, arms embargo and referral to the ICC. Yet, in 2016 a recent BBC article, ‘Syria Conflict: US and UK rhetoric ‘unacceptable’ Russia, states that Mr Peskov acknowledged the truce deal had been ‘not very effective’, but insisted that Moscow ‘definitely remains hopeful, and most importantly it retain the political will to apply as much effort as possible to find a steady path for political settlement in Syria’
Excellent integration of media articles! This explicitly highlights the effectiveness of the R2P doctrine in attempting to create cooperation.
You've presented a two sided argument; try and have a two-sided conclusion!