International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa. Kurt Mills
Читать онлайн книгу.
ground had been listened to when its commander presented evidence of the impending genocide, calls into question the willingness of the international community to engage in the necessary preventive activities.
Thus, prevention may include activities only tangentially related to heading off such mass atrocities, and it includes activities that have long been in the international community’s toolbox but have not been implemented to the extent necessary. As such, they are not necessarily the most important part of the newly recognized responsibility to protect. Further, in a rather fundamental sense they do not (with the possible exception of preventive deployment) protect in the sense of defending or shielding from harm. Preventive activities are obviously extremely important, but in the context of an ongoing genocide not as relevant as other activities.
Reaction
Paragraph 139 of the Outcome Document, which lays out the international community’s commitment to react to genocide and similar situations, begins by mentioning peaceful means of response, including humanitarian means. And paragraphs 132 and 133 (although not under the heading of R2P) discuss protecting IDPs and refugees, two of the most vulnerable groups in such situations. The question becomes, however, to what extent are humanitarian activities actually protective. As we shall see below, while many claims are made by humanitarians about protection, the actual protection they can provide is quite modest.
Paragraph 139 then continues to commit the UN, on a case by case basis, to taking collective action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—that is, using force against the wishes of a state. Such military protection (as opposed to the humanitarian protection discussed above) involves what is frequently called humanitarian intervention—the use of military force to compel a government to stop human rights abuses or to otherwise stop such abuses. The force may overthrow a government committing human rights abuses, apply other military pressure (such as the NATO bombing in Kosovo), serve as an interpositional force between warring parties committing human rights abuses, physically protect vulnerable populations, provide relief aid and ensure that food, medical supplies, and so forth can be delivered. This last activity may not have the same protective value as physically shielding people from harm, at least not in the long term. Since humanitarian military action can have many goals and outcomes, it is important to be clear about what one is advocating or pointing to as a responsibility in a particular situation. Bellamy argues that the term humanitarian intervention was avoided because many developing countries especially were wary of such terminology, seeing it as little more than a cover for neocolonial interventions.77 Yet this is what the UN recognized, and it represents perhaps the most important element of the R2P as elaborated by the World Summit. In fact, while the ICISS, Bellamy, and others make valid arguments that all the other activities mentioned by the ICISS and the Outcome Document are necessary in the context of mass atrocities, they pale in comparison to the potential effects—both on the ground and in the international legal and normative realm—of military intervention.
Rebuilding
The third element of R2P identified by the ICISS entails a commitment to rebuilding a society after a conflict. This includes economic development, institution building, and developing the rule of law, among other activities. Such a commitment, identified under the heading of peacebuilding rather than responsibility to protect in the Outcome Document, is relatively uncontroversial—although it raises questions of neocolonialism for some developing countries and the extent of the international community’s presence in postconflict societies. Such activities, to the extent that they contribute to the strengthening of a viable, peaceful state, may aid in preventing recurrence of conflict. However, with regard to the issue at hand, how the international community responds to an extant genocide or complex humanitarian emergency is of secondary importance. It may contribute to the protection of people after a conflict ends, but it does not protect people in the midst of conflict.
Thus, while the original conception of R2P as put forth by the ICISS, and partly endorsed by the World Summit, was very wide-ranging, if one is interested in effective, long-term protection of people caught in mass atrocity situations, the potentially most important element is the commitment to use Chapter VII enforcement mechanisms. This is because in some situations this may be the only way to protect people from being slaughtered. Further, it is a significant, if still somewhat ambiguous, affirmation of evolving normative and practical developments away from strict adherence to sovereignty. This is not to say that such actions may be appropriate in all instances, or that there may not be genuine disagreement about the relevant course of action. And it certainly does not mean that such tools will be used in all, or even many, situations where large numbers of people are being killed. Indeed, as we have seen, there are two other main responses the international community uses, which are conceptually distinct from military intervention, are possibly less effective, and may actually impede the use of more effective measures.
Protection
From the previous discussion, we have seen the development of three broad areas of human rights norms and practices that have been recognized in some manner or another as responsibilities of the international community: (1) palliate—ensure that people caught in the midst of conflict are fed and sheltered and provided with medical attention; (2) prosecute—eliminate impunity for those who commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes; and (3) protect—ensure that those at risk of genocide and other mass atrocities are not killed. All of these have humanitarian and human rights characteristics, but to the extent a division can be created between the two, they all have a different balance. Palliation, while part of the broad concern with the other that characterizes human rights, does not have the same connotations with regard to changing society. Rather, it responds to the situation in the most minimal way possible, although those who practice or advocate rights-based humanitarianism alter the balance in favor of advocating for change while also offering the humanitarian response. Prosecution is the enforcement element of the development of international humanitarian law that was created to provide minimal levels of protection for particular classes of people in the midst of conflict. Yet it is also part of the broader human rights project that attempts to remove impunity for those who engage in the worst human rights violations. Protection is the most far reaching. It has a broad agenda that aims to prevent large-scale human rights abuses, stop ongoing abuses, and rebuild societies after the abuses end. Yet the most important element of this new norm, principle, or whatever one calls it, is the stopping or reacting element. This responsibility to react is what used to be called humanitarian intervention. But it is the formal recognition of the intervention—that is using military force78—element for the humanitarian purpose of keeping people alive that is new and also the part of R2P that actually protects in the context of mass atrocities. Yet, as we have seen, all three practices make claims about protection. We thus need to further investigate the meaning of protection.
Humanitarian Protection
Humanitarian organizations like UNHCR or the ICRC see several protective elements to their work. Providing food, shelter, medical aid, and other resources to refugees and others affected by war and genocide have direct protective benefits for the individuals affected—it can literally save their lives. However, beyond this direct effect, other types of protection can be noted. UNHCR, for example, argues that merely having a presence on the ground in a conflict situation can be a form of protection. Their presence is an indication that the international community is watching, and can thus serve as a deterrent. However, sometimes that is not enough and it becomes clear that all the international community is doing is watching—and hoping that humanitarianism will suffice. UNHCR also talks about legal protection—which is its core mandate. This involves ensuring that refugees’ and asylum seekers’ rights are protected—making sure that states live up to their legal obligations under international refugee law, including the prohibition on nonrefoulement, obligations to examine asylum claims, and requirements for providing access to resources for refugees.79
The ICRC has a similar mandate, and although it frequently talks about relief and protection, David Forsythe argues that “the ICRC’s humanitarian protection in the field encompasses primarily traditional protection and relief protection.”80 Traditional protection is essentially identical to UNHCR’s