IR2P
From Never Again
The individual Responsibility to Protect (iR2P)
According to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine, every sovereign state is responsible for protecting its populations from atrocity crimes (including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity). Furthermore, this responsibility is shared by the international community, which must therefore be prepared to step in where states prove unable or unwilling to achieve live up to it. Prevention of atrocity crimes must be the priority, using all available means, including the use of force where necessary as a last resort.
A bold attempt to resolve a long-standing and divisive impasse over the legitimacy of so-called ‘humanitarian interventions’, ‘R2P’ has been steadily gaining recognition and credibility since its launch in late 2001, including formal endorsement by over 150 world leaders and by the Security Council. Gareth Evans, a founding architect of the idea and one of its most eloquent champions, is convinced that it is well on the way to becoming an international norm. This is encouraging progress, especially when considered alongside long-awaited advances in bringing some perpetrators of atrocity crimes before international tribunals, and the recent appointment of a UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide.
Unfortunately, however, we have yet to prove we can muster the necessary determination to make our rhetorical commitments meaningful by taking concerted action to tackle dauntingly complex of real-world crises such as the ongoing one in Darfur. As Kofi Annan lamented in a speech in New York on the day this article was written, “We have still not summoned up the collective sense of urgency that this issue requires”. While denouncing “the shameful passivity of most governments”, it is clear that he also blames himself, everyone, each of us, for failing to prevent three years of abuse and atrocities in Darfur.
At the Never Again retreat at Lake Kivu last February, I asked how a youthful, multi-disciplinary network might possibly encourage and enable individuals to engage in something as weighty and ambitious as the prevention of genocide. History has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not sufficient to leave seemingly self-evident moral imperatives to states, conventions and institutions. As we discussed, something more is required to ‘join the dots’, to transcend institutional and geographic boundaries. We understood a need to foster stronger links between the people most immediately at risk and the people in positions to help investigate and sound the alarm, or to propose, demand and implement imaginative, pragmatic solutions.
The vision that is emerging from our conversations since the retreat involves a critical mass of individuals from a rich variety of backgrounds, each personally committed to taking action to support effective prevention of atrocity crimes, connected and supported by an informal, non-directive network. The nature and opportunities for such action would vary according to where each of us lives and works, who we know, and the extent of our creativity and resourcefulness. By involving as many ‘insiders’ as possible – analysts, policy advisors, news editors, diplomats, UN officials, etc. – such a network could greatly strengthen the collective resolve to put our shared principles into effective practice. Inevitably, we will continue to struggle to agree on the most appropriate course of action, but it this should never inhibit us from showing concern and asking pertinent questions.
To find out more, and to join the conversation, you're welcome to visit the iR2P website.
