Doktrinen Responsibility to Protect och dess ställning inom den internationella rätten Betydelsefull eller tandlös?
(2023) LAGF03 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations presents the general rule regarding states use of force in international relations. The article states that all members are obliged to refrain from threat or use of force against another member states political independence or territorial integrity. Additionally, actions of threats or use of force that are in violation of the purposes of the United Nations are forbidden under the same article. However, article 51 of the same charter provides an exception to the general rule, in case of an armed attack against a member state is entitled to individual or collective self-defense. An exception to the general rule is further provided in article 42 of the charter. The article states that the... (More)
- Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations presents the general rule regarding states use of force in international relations. The article states that all members are obliged to refrain from threat or use of force against another member states political independence or territorial integrity. Additionally, actions of threats or use of force that are in violation of the purposes of the United Nations are forbidden under the same article. However, article 51 of the same charter provides an exception to the general rule, in case of an armed attack against a member state is entitled to individual or collective self-defense. An exception to the general rule is further provided in article 42 of the charter. The article states that the Security Council may under specialized forms and through contract, allow an armed action that serves the purpose of maintaining international security and peace.
The focus of this essay and the most debated topic is the exception that applies to humanitarian intervention as well as the doctrine about Responsibility to Protect. The doctrine was first presented in December of 2011 in a report called The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The doctrine was later accepted at the United Nations summit in 2005. The summit is known to be one of its kind at the time, and the document that was discussed during the meeting has received great importance for international law. For example, the doctrine has been applied after the outbreak of the civil war in Libya. Although, the application of the doctrine in that context can be criticized. The west led coalition has been criticized for exceeding its mandate by being a part of the movement that deposed Muammar Ghaddafi, the country’s leader, as well as executed his execution. As a result of the actions in Libya, the doctrine was applied to a far lesser extent during the civil war in Syria. Furthermore, a part of the world community, with China and Russia in the lead, had now a more negative approach against the function of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Huvudregeln gällande en stats brukande av våld framgår av artikel 2(4) i Förenta nationernas stadga. Av artikeln så framgår ett förbud för såväl hot som bruk av våld. Då det görs i syfte att inskränka en annan stats politiska oberoende eller territoriella integritet. Till detta så förbjuds även sådana hot eller bruk av våld som kan anses vara oförenligt med Förenta nationernas värdegrund. Av artikel 51 i stadgan så följer alltjämt ett undantag till huvudregeln vid fall då en stat har rätt att idka kollektivt eller individuellt självförsvar som svar på ett väpnat angrepp.
Likväl så följer det ett undantag till huvudregeln i fall då 42 artikeln i stadgan är tillämplig. Vilken anger formerna för när säkerhetsrådet har mandat att, genom... (More) - Huvudregeln gällande en stats brukande av våld framgår av artikel 2(4) i Förenta nationernas stadga. Av artikeln så framgår ett förbud för såväl hot som bruk av våld. Då det görs i syfte att inskränka en annan stats politiska oberoende eller territoriella integritet. Till detta så förbjuds även sådana hot eller bruk av våld som kan anses vara oförenligt med Förenta nationernas värdegrund. Av artikel 51 i stadgan så följer alltjämt ett undantag till huvudregeln vid fall då en stat har rätt att idka kollektivt eller individuellt självförsvar som svar på ett väpnat angrepp.
Likväl så följer det ett undantag till huvudregeln i fall då 42 artikeln i stadgan är tillämplig. Vilken anger formerna för när säkerhetsrådet har mandat att, genom avtal, tillåta en väpnad aktion som syftar till att upprätthålla den internationella säkerheten och freden.
Det mest omdiskuterade och för uppsatsen mest centrala undantaget till våldsförbudet gäller för så kallad humanitär intervention och doktrinen om Responsibility to Protect. Varvid doktrinen som sådan först presenterades genom International Commission on Intervention and State Sovreignty (ICISS) i dess rapport The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, från december, 2001. Doktrinen skulle sen komma att antas vid Förenta nationernas toppmöte, 2005. Toppmötet utgjorde det största av sitt slag vid tiden, varvid slutdokumentet som behandlade doktrinen skulle komma att ges stor vikt inom den internationella rätten. Doktrinen kom att tillämpas i Libyen efter att inbördeskrig hade brutit ut i landet. Tillämpningen av doktrinen inom den Libyska kontexten skulle däremot komma att kritiseras. Då det bland annat fördes fram argumentationer om att den stridande, västledda, koalitionen hade överstigit sitt mandat när man var en del av den rörelse som till slut avsatte landets ledare Muammar Gaddafi och sedermera genomförde avrättningen av denna. Som ett resultat av det upplevda övertrampet i Libyen så skulle doktrinen komma att tillämpas i långt mindre uträkning under det Syriska inbördeskriget. En del av världssamfundet, med Kina och Ryssland i spetsen hade nu intagit en alltmer misstänksam inställning gentemot doktrinen om Responsibility to Protect kring vad dess faktiska funktion utgjorde. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116626
@misc{9116626,
abstract = {{Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations presents the general rule regarding states use of force in international relations. The article states that all members are obliged to refrain from threat or use of force against another member states political independence or territorial integrity. Additionally, actions of threats or use of force that are in violation of the purposes of the United Nations are forbidden under the same article. However, article 51 of the same charter provides an exception to the general rule, in case of an armed attack against a member state is entitled to individual or collective self-defense. An exception to the general rule is further provided in article 42 of the charter. The article states that the Security Council may under specialized forms and through contract, allow an armed action that serves the purpose of maintaining international security and peace.
The focus of this essay and the most debated topic is the exception that applies to humanitarian intervention as well as the doctrine about Responsibility to Protect. The doctrine was first presented in December of 2011 in a report called The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The doctrine was later accepted at the United Nations summit in 2005. The summit is known to be one of its kind at the time, and the document that was discussed during the meeting has received great importance for international law. For example, the doctrine has been applied after the outbreak of the civil war in Libya. Although, the application of the doctrine in that context can be criticized. The west led coalition has been criticized for exceeding its mandate by being a part of the movement that deposed Muammar Ghaddafi, the country’s leader, as well as executed his execution. As a result of the actions in Libya, the doctrine was applied to a far lesser extent during the civil war in Syria. Furthermore, a part of the world community, with China and Russia in the lead, had now a more negative approach against the function of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect.}},
author = {{Sand, Isak}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Doktrinen Responsibility to Protect och dess ställning inom den internationella rätten Betydelsefull eller tandlös?}},
year = {{2023}},
}