Staters ansvar vid humanitära katastrofer - En analys av Responsibility to Protect
(2019) LAGF03 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Suveränitetsprincipen fastställer att varje stat fritt får råda över sina interna angelägenheter, utan inblandning från andra stater. Det internationella samfundet har också enats kring att människor ska skyddas från kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter. Humanitära katastrofer som sker inom en stats gränser belyser en konflikt mellan dessa två fundament inom folkrätten. Utomstående stater ställs inför valet mellan att göra ingenting eller intervenera, och därmed riskera att kränka någon av de två fundamenten. De storskaliga humanitära katastroferna som inträffade under andra halvan av 1900-talet gav upphov till diskussioner som syftade till att minska gapet mellan dessa motstående intressen. The International Commission on Intervention and... (More)
- Suveränitetsprincipen fastställer att varje stat fritt får råda över sina interna angelägenheter, utan inblandning från andra stater. Det internationella samfundet har också enats kring att människor ska skyddas från kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter. Humanitära katastrofer som sker inom en stats gränser belyser en konflikt mellan dessa två fundament inom folkrätten. Utomstående stater ställs inför valet mellan att göra ingenting eller intervenera, och därmed riskera att kränka någon av de två fundamenten. De storskaliga humanitära katastroferna som inträffade under andra halvan av 1900-talet gav upphov till diskussioner som syftade till att minska gapet mellan dessa motstående intressen. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) tillsattes år 2001 med uppgift lösa problematiken och arbetet resulterade så småningom i principen Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Enligt denna princip har stater det primära ansvaret att skydda sin befolkning mot folkmord, krigsförbrytelser, etnisk resning och brott mot mänskligheten. Ansvaret faller dock över på det internationella samfundet om staten ifråga uppenbart misslyckas. När världens stater enhälligt erkände R2P som en princip under Förenta Nationernas (FN) toppmöte år 2005, blev det för första gången officiellt erkänt att skyddet av mänskliga rättigheter inte står i motsats till, utan är en del av, suveränitet.
Uppsatsen analyserar R2P och gör därmed en ansats att konkretisera ett otydligt område inom folkrätten. Uppsatsen undersöker vad principen innebär, hur den rättsliga utvecklingen har sett ut samt dess status som folkrättslig norm. Vidare belyses den problematik och de intressemotsättningar som bidragit till att området är så komplicerat.
Resultatet visar att R2P inte är en bindande folkrättslig norm eftersom den inte finns med i någon bindande internationell överenskommelse eller i den internationella sedvanerätten. Samtidigt är R2P baserad på redan befintlig folkrätt – stater har sedan tidigare ett ansvar att skydda sina befolkningar mot nämnda brott. Principen utformades inte i syfte att skapa nya rättsregler, utan för att skapa en stark känsla av en politisk och moralisk skyldighet att tillämpa redan befintliga regler. Dessvärre gör nationella intressen, säkerhetsrådets permanenta medlemmars vetorätt samt brist på hänvisningar i rättsliga termer att principen inte implementeras i tillräcklig utsträckning. (Less) - Abstract
- The principle of sovereignty implies that every state has the right to control its internal affairs, without interference from other states. The international community has also agreed that people should be protected from human rights violations. Mass atrocities that occur within the borders of a state highlights a conflict between these two cornerstones of international law. External states are faced with the choice between doing nothing or intervening, thereby risking violating any of the two cornerstones. The large-scale humanitarian disasters that occurred during the second half of the 20th century gave rise to discussions aimed at reducing the gap between these opposing interests. The International Commission on Intervention and State... (More)
- The principle of sovereignty implies that every state has the right to control its internal affairs, without interference from other states. The international community has also agreed that people should be protected from human rights violations. Mass atrocities that occur within the borders of a state highlights a conflict between these two cornerstones of international law. External states are faced with the choice between doing nothing or intervening, thereby risking violating any of the two cornerstones. The large-scale humanitarian disasters that occurred during the second half of the 20th century gave rise to discussions aimed at reducing the gap between these opposing interests. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was appointed in 2001 to solve the dilemma and the work of the commission eventually resulted in the concept Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This principle declares that states have the primary responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. However, the responsibility falls over to the international community if the state in question manifestly fails to do so. When the international community unanimously recognized R2P as a principle during the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit, it was the first official recognition that the protection of human rights is not contrary to, but part of, sovereignty.
This essay analyzes R2P and thus makes an effort to concretize an unclear area within international law. The essay examines what the principle entails, the legal development that shaped the principle as well as its status as a norm of international law. Furthermore, problems and contradictions that have contributed to the complexities of this area are highlighted.
The results show that R2P is not a binding legal norm, as it is not included in any binding international agreement or part of international customary law. At the same time, R2P is based on already existing international law – states have previously had a responsibility to protect their populations against said crimes. The principle was not designed to create new legal rules, but to create a strong sense of a political and moral obligation to apply existing ones. Unfortunately, national interests, the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council and lack of references in legal terms lead to insufficient implementation of the principle. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8976984
- author
- Herlitz Bäckman, Miriam LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt, R2P, suveränitet, våldsförbudet, FN
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8976984
- date added to LUP
- 2019-09-16 10:36:14
- date last changed
- 2019-09-16 10:36:14
@misc{8976984,
abstract = {{The principle of sovereignty implies that every state has the right to control its internal affairs, without interference from other states. The international community has also agreed that people should be protected from human rights violations. Mass atrocities that occur within the borders of a state highlights a conflict between these two cornerstones of international law. External states are faced with the choice between doing nothing or intervening, thereby risking violating any of the two cornerstones. The large-scale humanitarian disasters that occurred during the second half of the 20th century gave rise to discussions aimed at reducing the gap between these opposing interests. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was appointed in 2001 to solve the dilemma and the work of the commission eventually resulted in the concept Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This principle declares that states have the primary responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. However, the responsibility falls over to the international community if the state in question manifestly fails to do so. When the international community unanimously recognized R2P as a principle during the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit, it was the first official recognition that the protection of human rights is not contrary to, but part of, sovereignty.
This essay analyzes R2P and thus makes an effort to concretize an unclear area within international law. The essay examines what the principle entails, the legal development that shaped the principle as well as its status as a norm of international law. Furthermore, problems and contradictions that have contributed to the complexities of this area are highlighted.
The results show that R2P is not a binding legal norm, as it is not included in any binding international agreement or part of international customary law. At the same time, R2P is based on already existing international law – states have previously had a responsibility to protect their populations against said crimes. The principle was not designed to create new legal rules, but to create a strong sense of a political and moral obligation to apply existing ones. Unfortunately, national interests, the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council and lack of references in legal terms lead to insufficient implementation of the principle.}},
author = {{Herlitz Bäckman, Miriam}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Staters ansvar vid humanitära katastrofer - En analys av Responsibility to Protect}},
year = {{2019}},
}