The responsibility to protect

Abstract

Since September II, 200 I, international policy attention has been captured by the response to global terrorism and case for preemption against countries believed to be irresponsibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. These issues, however, are conceptually and practically distinct. What is involved in the debates about intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere is the scope and limits of countries' rights to act in self-defense. If the international community is to respond to this challenge, the issue must be reframed, not as an argument about the right to intervene but about the responsibility to protect. At the heart of this conceptual approach is a shift in thinking about the essence of sovereignty, from control to responsibility. Of the precautionary principles needed to justify intervention, the first is 'right intention.' The second is 'last resort.' The third is 'proportional means.' Finally, there is the principle of 'reasonable prospects.' The most difficult and controversial principle to apply is that of 'right authority.' It is the responsibility of the whole international community to ensurethat the mistakes of the 1990s will not be repeated. A good place to start would be agreement by the United Nations (UN) Security Council to systematically apply the principles set out here to any such case.