CCTS No 31: Civil Society Group of the United Kingdom Statement on Responsibility to Protect

The undersigned organisations wish to show their support for the doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)

The Responsibility to Protect is a tripartite doctrine, establishing an internationally recognised ‘Responsibility to prevent’, ‘Responsibility to react’, and ‘Responsibility to rebuild’. These principles of the Responsibility to Protect were recognised by the international community in the United Nations statement issued at the September 2005 world summit. Following this acceptance by the international community we would like to note that:

The existence of a clear doctrine obliges the international community to respond consistently to large-scale violence and loss of life and its application would avert the high costs, human and economic, of failing to protect civilians;
The responsibility to protect is first a responsibility on national governments to protect their own populations;
The exercise of the responsibility both to prevent and react should always involve less intrusive and coercive measures being considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied in accordance with Chapter VI and VII of the UN Charter, and particular consideration should be given to the graduated response contemplated in Articles 33(2), 34, 36, 38 and 41;
Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect. Prevention options must always be exhausted before coercive measures including the use of force of any sort are contemplated. Prevention includes addressing the root causes of conflict, including development assistance, trade mechanisms and support for better governance;
In each of the three interconnected elements of the doctrine gender-sensitive perspectives shall be incorporated taking into particular account Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security;
In preventive and protective initiatives, particular attention should be paid to the situation and rights of ethnic and religious communities and indigenous peoples, as the most common victims of genocide;
The United Nations Security Council is the primary body to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes, permanent members should refrain from using their veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. An appropriate regional body, where one exists with such authority, may also take action;
If as a last resort the Responsibility to Protect reaches the use of force, it should only be considered based on the five precautionary principles set out in the report of the ‘High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’ and listed in the appendix to this statement;
If as a last resort the Responsibility to Protect reaches the use of force, it should only be considered based on the five precautionary principles set out in the report of the ‘High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’ and listed in the appendix to this statement;
The mandate and size of military deployment must reflect the nature and scale of the threat faced by the target population.

We call for:

More commitment and resources to be devoted to prevention including the development of United Nations institutional capacity for early warning and translating early warning into concrete recommendations for action;
The international recognition that making a reality of prevention involves the detailed construction, international legitimation of and support for a single, well-resourced voluntary, consultative machinery, under UN auspices, developed on the model of preventative diplomacy, such as the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities;
The international recognition that prevention also requires all external parties including major powers explicitly to adopt the role of ‘good offices’, to publicly commit to a coherent wider international multilateral diplomacy;
The use of a transparent menu of available sanctions gradually escalating towards the more coercive, to be held in reserve alongside open channels of communication, which would make clear to disputant parties the cost of absolute non-cooperation and/or continuing violence;
The United Nations Security Council to make explicit reference to the doctrine of responsibility to protect and the five precautionary principles in all relevant resolutions; and
Countries to provide timely and adequate logistical support and personnel according to capacity.

The UK Government should:

Commit to refrain from using the UK veto at the UN Security Council in cases relating to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;
Provide access to the United Nations Security Council for the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, and support his early warning role;
Consult with civil society organisations as to the application of the Responsibility to Protect;
Co-ordinate between the relevant UK Government departments to ensure that R2P is addressed coherently between government departments, producing a joint DFID, FCO and MOD annual report to Parliament detailing UK Government progress on the development and implementation of the Responsibility to Protect; and
Co-ordinate between the relevant UK Government departments to ensure that R2P is addressed coherently between government departments, producing a joint DFID, FCO and MOD annual report to Parliament detailing UK Government progress on the development and implementation of the Responsibility to Protect; and
Provide sufficient resources and training for the UK, and other countries, to fulfil their obligations, as part of the international community, to provide practical support for the implementation of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect.

Signed by the following civil society organisation and individuals:

-------------------------------

Appendix A
The Precautionary Principles for the use of force under the Responsibility to Protect are:

(a) Just Cause: Military intervention for human protection purposes is justified to halt or avert large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product of either deliberate state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or large scale “ethnic cleansing” actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape;
(b) Right intention: The primary purpose of military intervention must be to halt or avert human suffering.
(c) Last resort: Military intervention could only be legally justified when every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.
(d) Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.
(e) Reasonable Prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction.

	Civil Society Group of the United Kingdom Statement on Responsibility to Protect A group of UK NGOs and other civil society representatives convened by One World Trust have recently produced the following draft statement on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It will be published in its final form and open for signatures in the autumn. For enquiries about this statement, contact Claire Wren of One World Trust, email address: cwren@oneworldtrust.org
	The undersigned organisations wish to show their support for the doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) The Responsibility to Protect is a tripartite doctrine, establishing an internationally recognised ‘Responsibility to prevent’, ‘Responsibility to react’, and ‘Responsibility to rebuild’. These principles of the Responsibility to Protect were recognised by the international community in the United Nations statement issued at the September 2005 world summit. Following this acceptance by the international community we would like to note that: The existence of a clear doctrine obliges the international community to respond consistently to large-scale violence and loss of life and its application would avert the high costs, human and economic, of failing to protect civilians; The responsibility to protect is first a responsibility on national governments to protect their own populations; The exercise of the responsibility both to prevent and react should always involve less intrusive and coercive measures being considered before more coercive and intrusive ones are applied in accordance with Chapter VI and VII of the UN Charter, and particular consideration should be given to the graduated response contemplated in Articles 33(2), 34, 36, 38 and 41; Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect. Prevention options must always be exhausted before coercive measures including the use of force of any sort are contemplated. Prevention includes addressing the root causes of conflict, including development assistance, trade mechanisms and support for better governance; In each of the three interconnected elements of the doctrine gender-sensitive perspectives shall be incorporated taking into particular account Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security; In preventive and protective initiatives, particular attention should be paid to the situation and rights of ethnic and religious communities and indigenous peoples, as the most common victims of genocide; The United Nations Security Council is the primary body to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes, permanent members should refrain from using their veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. An appropriate regional body, where one exists with such authority, may also take action; If as a last resort the Responsibility to Protect reaches the use of force, it should only be considered based on the five precautionary principles set out in the report of the ‘High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’ and listed in the appendix to this statement; If as a last resort the Responsibility to Protect reaches the use of force, it should only be considered based on the five precautionary principles set out in the report of the ‘High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’ and listed in the appendix to this statement; The mandate and size of military deployment must reflect the nature and scale of the threat faced by the target population. We call for: More commitment and resources to be devoted to prevention including the development of United Nations institutional capacity for early warning and translating early warning into concrete recommendations for action; The international recognition that making a reality of prevention involves the detailed construction, international legitimation of and support for a single, well-resourced voluntary, consultative machinery, under UN auspices, developed on the model of preventative diplomacy, such as the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities; The international recognition that prevention also requires all external parties including major powers explicitly to adopt the role of ‘good offices’, to publicly commit to a coherent wider international multilateral diplomacy; The use of a transparent menu of available sanctions gradually escalating towards the more coercive, to be held in reserve alongside open channels of communication, which would make clear to disputant parties the cost of absolute non-cooperation and/or continuing violence; The United Nations Security Council to make explicit reference to the doctrine of responsibility to protect and the five precautionary principles in all relevant resolutions; and Countries to provide timely and adequate logistical support and personnel according to capacity. The UK Government should: Commit to refrain from using the UK veto at the UN Security Council in cases relating to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; Provide access to the United Nations Security Council for the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, and support his early warning role; Consult with civil society organisations as to the application of the Responsibility to Protect; Co-ordinate between the relevant UK Government departments to ensure that R2P is addressed coherently between government departments, producing a joint DFID, FCO and MOD annual report to Parliament detailing UK Government progress on the development and implementation of the Responsibility to Protect; and Co-ordinate between the relevant UK Government departments to ensure that R2P is addressed coherently between government departments, producing a joint DFID, FCO and MOD annual report to Parliament detailing UK Government progress on the development and implementation of the Responsibility to Protect; and Provide sufficient resources and training for the UK, and other countries, to fulfil their obligations, as part of the international community, to provide practical support for the implementation of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect. Signed by the following civil society organisation and individuals: ------------------------------- Appendix A The Precautionary Principles for the use of force under the Responsibility to Protect are: (a) Just Cause: Military intervention for human protection purposes is justified to halt or avert large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product of either deliberate state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or large scale “ethnic cleansing” actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape; (b) Right intention: The primary purpose of military intervention must be to halt or avert human suffering. (c) Last resort: Military intervention could only be legally justified when every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded. (d) Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded. (e) Reasonable Prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction.

	<< Previous Article	Next article >>

	newsletter \| ccts \| top

CCTS Review 31

CCTS
Review 31