The responsibility to protect: assessing the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

ID:	HARP-132
Title:	The responsibility to protect: assessing the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
Source:	International Journal, v.57(4) Fall’02 pg 489-502
Parties:
Dispute Resolution Organ:	International Commission on Intervention & State Sovereignty
Year:	2002
Pages:	0
Author(s):
Keywords:	Canada, equality before the law, human rights, jurisdiction, legitimacy, sovereignty, United Nations, politics, civil and political rights, security, liberty
Abstract:	THE CONTROVERSIAL PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION is much older than the United Nations system that enshrines it. Indeed, debates about the extent and limits of state sovereignty have been an integral part of the evolution of modern international society since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.(f.#2) Since 1945, the debate has focused on the alleged incompatibility of two principles of the United Nations system: sovereign equality and human rights. The former, enshrined in articles 2(1), 2(4) and 2(7), suggests that states should enjoy sovereign equality – defined internally as exclusive jurisdiction within a territory and externally as freedom from outside interference. The latter, identified in the preamble and article 1(3) and elaborated in subsequent declarations and conventions, suggests that individual rights are inalienable and transcend sovereign frontiers. Several features of contemporary international relations have sharpened this conflict and provided added impetus to those calling for more interventionism: the weakness (or complete failure) of state structures in many conflict-ridden societies, which provides opportunity for criminal activity, arms proliferation, and terrorism; the increased vulnerability of civilians in the context of civil conflict; the `CNN effect,’ in which global and instantaneous access to information heightens popular awareness of human suffering; the strengthening of human rights norms and proliferation of human rights organizations; the fear of refugee flows; and the search by Western governments for new forms of political legitimacy and `moral authority’ to replace the ideologically driven agenda of the cold war. In short, today’s debate about the legitimacy of intervention is conducted in a climate of heightened expectations for action.
Secured:	False
Download Article:	Available here