Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The responsibility to protect - A foundation for making exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force?

Lindersköld, Kajsa LU (2019) LAGF03 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
År 2001 publicerade den Internationella Kommission för Intervention och Statssuveränitet (ICISS) en rapport om den så kallade doktrinen om skyldigheten att skydda (responsibility to protect, R2P). Enligt kommissionen innebär doktrinen att det internationella samfundet genom FN har en skyldighet att ingripa i situationer då människor utsätts för grova brott mot mänskliga rättigheter. Skyldigheten är subsidiär och infaller först då staten som har ansvar för att dessa människors mänskliga rättigheter respekteras misslyckas med att ingripa. Kommissionen menar att doktrinen på så sätt kan vara en lösning på de situationer då människor utsätts för grova brott inom en stats gränser där det internationella samfundet vanligtvis inte har tillåtelse... (More)
År 2001 publicerade den Internationella Kommission för Intervention och Statssuveränitet (ICISS) en rapport om den så kallade doktrinen om skyldigheten att skydda (responsibility to protect, R2P). Enligt kommissionen innebär doktrinen att det internationella samfundet genom FN har en skyldighet att ingripa i situationer då människor utsätts för grova brott mot mänskliga rättigheter. Skyldigheten är subsidiär och infaller först då staten som har ansvar för att dessa människors mänskliga rättigheter respekteras misslyckas med att ingripa. Kommissionen menar att doktrinen på så sätt kan vara en lösning på de situationer då människor utsätts för grova brott inom en stats gränser där det internationella samfundet vanligtvis inte har tillåtelse att intervenera. Några år efter att rapporten publicerades antog FNs generalförsamling en resolution som innehöll ett antagande av doktrinen. Sedan dess har doktrinen diskuterats ihärdigt i samband med debatten om våldsanvändning inom ramen för humanitär intervention.

Framtiden för doktrinen inom internationell rätt är inte självklar. Bland kritikerna finns såväl förespråkare som motståndare. Förespråkarna ser doktrinen som en lovande internationell rättskälla under utveckling, medan motståndarna ifrågasätter de legala grunderna som doktrinen sägs vila på.

Den här uppsatsen undersöker det rättsliga förhållandet mellan våldsregleringen i internationell rätt och doktrinen i syfte att finna ett svar på frågan om doktrinen kan innebär att undantag från det generella våldsförbudet i situationer då grova brott mot mänskliga rättigheter äger rum. Argumenten som framförs är grundade i såväl juridik som moral. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report on the so called doctrine of the responsibility to protect (R2P). According to the ICISS, the R2P implies a subsidiary responsibility on the international community through the United Nations (UN) to protect populations from gross human rights violations if states responsible for those populations fails to protect them by themselves. The proposal of the ICISS is that in situations of mass atrocities, if necessary, the international community should be able to resort to the use of military force. The ICISS suggests that the R2P could be the solution to the seemingly unresolvable problem of gross human rights violations occurring within... (More)
In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report on the so called doctrine of the responsibility to protect (R2P). According to the ICISS, the R2P implies a subsidiary responsibility on the international community through the United Nations (UN) to protect populations from gross human rights violations if states responsible for those populations fails to protect them by themselves. The proposal of the ICISS is that in situations of mass atrocities, if necessary, the international community should be able to resort to the use of military force. The ICISS suggests that the R2P could be the solution to the seemingly unresolvable problem of gross human rights violations occurring within territorial borders without the international community being able to intervene. A few years later, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) adopted a resolution in which the R2P is acknowledged. Since then the R2P has remained in the spotlight in the debate on intervention for humanitarian protection purposes.

The point of departure is that the future of the R2P is not given. There are both those in favour of the R2P as an emerging source of international law as well as those who are more hesitant and doubtful. To some, the doctrine is part of a more or less viable solution to bridge the gap between on the one hand the prohibition of the use of force and state sovereignty, and on the other the protection and realization of fundamental human rights. To others, the R2P is based on ‘legal nothingness’. 

The thesis examines the legal relationship between the use of force-regulation and the R2P for the purpose of finding an answer to the question if the R2P, as of today, has the ability to evoke an exception to the prohibition of use of force in events of gross human rights violations. The various arguments that this examination raises are both legally as well as strictly morally founded. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lindersköld, Kajsa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20192
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
The responsibility to protect, public international law
language
English
id
9003574
date added to LUP
2020-04-08 00:31:03
date last changed
2020-04-08 00:31:03
@misc{9003574,
  abstract     = {{In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) published a report on the so called doctrine of the responsibility to protect (R2P). According to the ICISS, the R2P implies a subsidiary responsibility on the international community through the United Nations (UN) to protect populations from gross human rights violations if states responsible for those populations fails to protect them by themselves. The proposal of the ICISS is that in situations of mass atrocities, if necessary, the international community should be able to resort to the use of military force. The ICISS suggests that the R2P could be the solution to the seemingly unresolvable problem of gross human rights violations occurring within territorial borders without the international community being able to intervene. A few years later, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) adopted a resolution in which the R2P is acknowledged. Since then the R2P has remained in the spotlight in the debate on intervention for humanitarian protection purposes.

The point of departure is that the future of the R2P is not given. There are both those in favour of the R2P as an emerging source of international law as well as those who are more hesitant and doubtful. To some, the doctrine is part of a more or less viable solution to bridge the gap between on the one hand the prohibition of the use of force and state sovereignty, and on the other the protection and realization of fundamental human rights. To others, the R2P is based on ‘legal nothingness’. 

The thesis examines the legal relationship between the use of force-regulation and the R2P for the purpose of finding an answer to the question if the R2P, as of today, has the ability to evoke an exception to the prohibition of use of force in events of gross human rights violations. The various arguments that this examination raises are both legally as well as strictly morally founded.}},
  author       = {{Lindersköld, Kajsa}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{The responsibility to protect - A foundation for making exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force?}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}