Security of Life is the basis of formation of States. In Hobbes’s view, the state of nature is characterized by a “war of every man against every man.” Hence, State sovereignty carries the obligation to protect its population. But what happens when the State is incapable to protect or when the State itself becomes an aggressor. Who is responsible to secure the life and well being of the people.

Background to R2P

In his annual report to the UN General Assembly in September 1999, Secretary General Kofi Annan reflected upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century” and challenged the member states to “find common ground in upholding the principles of the UN charter, and acting in defence of common humanity”. His remarks came on the pretext of NATO intervention in Kosovo in March, which was criticised by International community for violation of prohibition of the use of force and collective failure of international community in preventing the atrocities committed in Rwanda and Balkans in 1990s. Again while presenting the Millennium Report in 2000, Annan reiterated the challenge to the international community saying that, “ if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systemic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”

Responding to the challenge the Canadian government set up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in September 2000. And after wide consultation and debates the commission issued a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. 

Shaping up the concept and International Acceptance

The concept of responsibility to protect drew inspiration from Francis M Deng’s idea of “state sovereignty as a responsibility”. The idea affirms the notion of a nation’s positive responsibility towards its population’s welfare and not just protection from outside interference. Consequently, the ‘primary responsibility’ to protect its people rests first and foremost with the state itself. However, the ‘residuary responsibility’, also lies with the community of states, which is ‘activated when a particular state is clearly unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities’

In 2005, a report  entitled  ‘A more secure world: Our shared responsibility’ of High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes and Secretary-General’s Larger freedom: Towards development, security and human rights for all endorsed the principle that state sovereignty carried with it the obligation to protect its people, and if the state fails to oblige or unable to do so, then the responsibility shifts to the international community to use any means to protect them. 

At the 2005 UN World Summit meeting, the principle of responsibility to protect was included into the outcome document. Member states affirmed their commitment & responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The heads of the states accepted a collective responsibility to encourage and help each other uphold this commitment. 

How R2P is Invoked?

Chapter VII of UN charter allows the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and to make recommendations, or decide measures to be taken in accordance with Article 41 & Article 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

First Instance of Invoking R2P

On 17 March 2011, UN adopted 1973 resolution on Libya authorising the member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya. The resolution also imposes no-fly zone over Libyan air space and an arms embargo.

In February 2011, the protest turned into a country wide rebellion when Gaddafi’s forces clashed with the opposing rebel forces demanding his ouster. Clashes intensified and within few weeks rebel forces took control of several coastal cities. Amidst rising casualties Gaddafi government called for ceasefire but the National Transitional Council, an interim government established by rebel forces rejected the offers of ceasefire to end conflict because the plan did not include the removal of Gaddafi.

Meanwhile, the UN security council passed an initial resolution to freeze Gaddafi’s assets and impose travel restrictions on the members of his inner circle, referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for further investigation.

In early august, rebel forces along with NATO launched an offensive to take back lost territories and ultimately capturing Tripoli. Muammar Gaddafi was captured and killed in October after evading capture since august. The National Transition Council of rebel forces was recognised by the UN as the legal representative of the Libyan people. On 23 October the NTC declared ‘liberation of Libya’ and end of the war. 

Sovereignty & Its Shortcoming

Sovereign country is a capable country to defend its people against the external interference. Not only does it have the ability, but it also bears the primary responsibility of ensuring the safety and well-being of its citizens in the face of both external interference and internal adversity. Sovereignty of the country is the natural responsibility bestowed by its people. Therefore, the question of not acting or failing to act when the need arises is abandoning and betraying the faith of the people. So, when in any case if the sovereign fails to or becomes incapable to act does the people have the right to look for external help beyond the sovereign? If the question is about the life & well being, then the people should possess the will & exercise their right to call upon beyond sovereign. Because the sovereign has lost the right to decide for the people, which it was bestowed upon by the same people. Therefore, the right to decide their fate has to be stripped off the sovereign in such case.

Next, what if the sovereign is the perpetrator of the crime? Which yet again demonstrates the value the sovereign places on the lives of its people. In such a situation, the ‘community of states’ should bear the responsibility of protection of life because protection of life is the principle that transcends the idea of sovereignty. Protection of life and human rights are universal principles that cannot be the responsibility only of the concerned sovereign. It is the collective concern of the ‘community of the states’ to stand by when the sovereign fails or is incapable to act or become the propagator of the crime.