Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ansvaret att skydda – Responsibility to Protect och FN-stadgans våldsförbud

Werdelin, Fredrik LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
FN-stadgans våldsförbud sätter upp ett absolut förbud mot våldsanvändning stater emellan, och endast en situation av självförsvar eller med mandat från säkerhetsrådet kan en stat få rätt att göra undantag från förbudet. Detta till trots finns det många exempel på fall av våldshandlingar som går utanför förbudets ramar, så kallade humanitära interventioner, och man har i dessa situationer hänvisat till folkrättsliga principer som Responsibility to Protect. En av de största anledningarna till dessa brott mot våldsförbudet är att säkerhetsrådets permanenta medlemmar har vetorätt vid beslutsfattandet, och kan därför ensidigt sätta stopp för beslut om våldsmandat. När det då handlar om att sätta stopp för folkmord i en stat argumenterar många... (More)
FN-stadgans våldsförbud sätter upp ett absolut förbud mot våldsanvändning stater emellan, och endast en situation av självförsvar eller med mandat från säkerhetsrådet kan en stat få rätt att göra undantag från förbudet. Detta till trots finns det många exempel på fall av våldshandlingar som går utanför förbudets ramar, så kallade humanitära interventioner, och man har i dessa situationer hänvisat till folkrättsliga principer som Responsibility to Protect. En av de största anledningarna till dessa brott mot våldsförbudet är att säkerhetsrådets permanenta medlemmar har vetorätt vid beslutsfattandet, och kan därför ensidigt sätta stopp för beslut om våldsmandat. När det då handlar om att sätta stopp för folkmord i en stat argumenterar många för att det krävs ytterligare möjligheter till intervention i humanitära syften.

Syftet med uppsatsen är därför att undersöka legaliteten av dessa interventioner och analysera de argument som framförs för och emot de principer de lutar sig emot. I framställningen beskrivs bakgrunden till principernas uppkomst, och där konstateras att de är förhållandevis nya i den internationella sedvanerätten. Humanitära interventioner nämns förvisso långt tillbaka i tiden, men inte förrän efter FN:s grundande hänvisas de till som skäl för ett angrepp på en annan stat. Responsibility to Protect är en vidareutveckling av de humanitära interventionerna, och kan beskrivas som principen att världens stater har ett ansvar att skydda sin befolkning. Uttrycket dök upp först i ICISS rapport i december 2001, även om dess ursprung kan spåras i den internationella debatten under 1990-talet. Det kan dock konstateras att ingen av principerna har lyckats leda till en ändring av FN-stadgan, och våldsförbudet står därmed lika orubbligt fast som vid dess fastslående 1945.

Den internationella rätten formas dock också av sedvanerätt och staternas opinio juris, och många av argumenten går därför ut på att en sedvanerättslig ändring av våldsförbudets ramar har uppstått. Som framställningen visar har en sådan ändring inte kommit till stånd ännu, men även om motståndarna är i majoritet så råder ändå splittrade åsikter och en ändring av läget i framtiden är inte omöjlig. Avslutningsvis väljer jag att diskutera interventionernas framtid, och i min mening krävs det en ändring av stadgan som är mer i linje med hur dagens internationella rättsläge ser ut. Världen har utvecklats enormt sedan FN:s grundande, och de situationer som uppstår idag är annorlunda än de man räknade med då man formulerade dess regler. Dock bör en sådan förändring ske försiktigt och i samråd mellan medlemsstaterna för att undvika att regelsystemet utnyttjas för enskilda staters syften. (Less)
Abstract
The UN Charter sets up an absolute prohibition on the use of force between states, and only a situation of self-defense or a mandate from the Security Council can give the right to make exceptions to the ban. Despite this, there are many examples of cases of violence that goes beyond the prohibition framework, so-called humanitarian interventions, and to justify those operations references to international law principles like Responsibility to Protect have been used. One of the main reasons for those breaches is the fact that the Security Council's permanent members can put in their veto during the voting, and therefore have the power to unilaterally put an end to a violence mandate. When there is a need to put an end to genocide within a... (More)
The UN Charter sets up an absolute prohibition on the use of force between states, and only a situation of self-defense or a mandate from the Security Council can give the right to make exceptions to the ban. Despite this, there are many examples of cases of violence that goes beyond the prohibition framework, so-called humanitarian interventions, and to justify those operations references to international law principles like Responsibility to Protect have been used. One of the main reasons for those breaches is the fact that the Security Council's permanent members can put in their veto during the voting, and therefore have the power to unilaterally put an end to a violence mandate. When there is a need to put an end to genocide within a state, many argue for the necessity of further opportunities for intervention in humanitarian purposes.

The purpose of this paper is therefore to inquire into the legality of these interventions and to analyze the arguments put forth in defense for and against the principles they lean against. The background to the origin of the principles is described, and it is found that they are relatively new to the customary international law. Humanitarian interventions are mentioned fairly far back in time, but not until after the foundation of the UN are they referred to as the reason for an attack on another state. Responsibility to Protect is a further development of the humanitarian intervention, and can be described as the principle that the world's governments have a responsibility to protect its population. The term first appeared in the ICISS report in December 2001, although its origins can be traced to the international debate in the 1990s. It should be pointed out that none of the principles have successfully lead to an amendment of the UN Charter, and the prohibition of violence is thus just as tenacious as by its establishment in 1945.

International law, however, is also shaped by customary law and States' opinio juris, and many of the arguments are therefore aiming at a customary amendment of the framework of the violence ban. As this paper demonstrates, such a change is not yet about to happen, but even if the adversaries are in the majority there’s still some division among the opinions and a change of state in the future is not impossible. Finally, I chose to discuss the future of the interventions, and in my opinion a modification of the statute that is more in line with today's international legal position is required. The world has evolved tremendously since the founding of the UN, and the situations that occur today are different than those foreseen when the rules were set. However, such a change needs to be made cautiously and in consultation between the Member States in order to avoid that the regulatory system is utilized for individual purposes. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Werdelin, Fredrik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Folkrätt, FN, Responsibility to Protect, Humanitär intervention, Våldsförbud
language
Swedish
id
4228724
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:38:44
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:38:44
@misc{4228724,
  abstract     = {The UN Charter sets up an absolute prohibition on the use of force between states, and only a situation of self-defense or a mandate from the Security Council can give the right to make exceptions to the ban. Despite this, there are many examples of cases of violence that goes beyond the prohibition framework, so-called humanitarian interventions, and to justify those operations references to international law principles like Responsibility to Protect have been used. One of the main reasons for those breaches is the fact that the Security Council's permanent members can put in their veto during the voting, and therefore have the power to unilaterally put an end to a violence mandate. When there is a need to put an end to genocide within a state, many argue for the necessity of further opportunities for intervention in humanitarian purposes.

The purpose of this paper is therefore to inquire into the legality of these interventions and to analyze the arguments put forth in defense for and against the principles they lean against. The background to the origin of the principles is described, and it is found that they are relatively new to the customary international law. Humanitarian interventions are mentioned fairly far back in time, but not until after the foundation of the UN are they referred to as the reason for an attack on another state. Responsibility to Protect is a further development of the humanitarian intervention, and can be described as the principle that the world's governments have a responsibility to protect its population. The term first appeared in the ICISS report in December 2001, although its origins can be traced to the international debate in the 1990s. It should be pointed out that none of the principles have successfully lead to an amendment of the UN Charter, and the prohibition of violence is thus just as tenacious as by its establishment in 1945.

International law, however, is also shaped by customary law and States' opinio juris, and many of the arguments are therefore aiming at a customary amendment of the framework of the violence ban. As this paper demonstrates, such a change is not yet about to happen, but even if the adversaries are in the majority there’s still some division among the opinions and a change of state in the future is not impossible. Finally, I chose to discuss the future of the interventions, and in my opinion a modification of the statute that is more in line with today's international legal position is required. The world has evolved tremendously since the founding of the UN, and the situations that occur today are different than those foreseen when the rules were set. However, such a change needs to be made cautiously and in consultation between the Member States in order to avoid that the regulatory system is utilized for individual purposes.},
  author       = {Werdelin, Fredrik},
  keyword      = {Folkrätt,FN,Responsibility to Protect,Humanitär intervention,Våldsförbud},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ansvaret att skydda – Responsibility to Protect och FN-stadgans våldsförbud},
  year         = {2013},
}