Responsibility To Protect

ten years on-what next ?

 Published by Liberal International (LI) with the support of the Friedrich Naumann
Foundation for Freedom. The views expressed in this publication are those of the
authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Friedrich Naumann
Foundation for Freedom.
[2-3] Foreword [33-37] Angela Patnode

[4-5] What is RtoP? [38-43] Amb. Natalie Sabanadze

[6-13] LIs Work on RtoP [44] Liberal Visions on RtoP

[14] RtoP Conference in [45-46] Lord John Alderdice

Brussles
[47-49] Celito F. Arlegue
[15] Overview
[50-53] Irwin Cotler
[16] Opening Remarks
[54-55] Khdor Habib MP
[17-20] Is RtoP Dead?
[56-58] Ingemund Hgg
[21] Working Lunch
[59-60] Ilhan Kyuchyuk MEP
[23-25] The Future of RtoP
[61-62] Richard Moore
[26] Concluding Comment
[63-67] Why RtoP Matters
[28] Expert Outlook on RtoP
[68] About Us
[29-32] Jonas Claes

table of contents

foreword
A ssuming responsibility for
oneself and ones community
and respecting the basic rights of
one another are key tenants of
liberalism, notions the Friedrich
Naumann Foundation for Freedom
actively promotes in cooperation
with its partners worldwide.
We are particularly pleased to
work with Liberal International.
2
As Liberals, we have always
believed that our responsibility
may extend beyond the
confinement of national borders;
it can reach across oceans and
continents, it extends to everyone
who is prevented from living their
lives in dignity. This is even truer in
a globalized world. German liberals
have supported the Responsibility
As liberals we have
always believed that our
responsibility may extend
beyond the confinement of
our national borders.
to Protect (RtoP) norm since its
inception, its principal goal being
the prevention of gross human
rights violations and genocide.
The responsibility to protect has
often, mistakenly, been equated
with military intervention, when
such intervention is, in fact, only
the last step in a long line of
measures designed to stop gross it: An ounce of prevention is
human rights violations. As in every worth a pound of cure. Let this
peacebuilding initiative, the alpha serve as a reminder that in the
and omega of RtoP is prevention. interconnected world of today,
looking away is simply not an
This is where we see our main option.
responsibility: Supporting citizens,
civil society organizations
and parties to strengthen
democratic structures in their
countries. We seek to help
them create accountability
mechanisms, further economic
development, and above
all foster dialogue between
citizens and across borders.
Although often consumed
by domestic turmoil, Europe Dr. Hans H. Stein, Director
must not shrink from its global
responsibility to protect. As
European and Transatlantic
Michael Ignatieff, a liberal thinker Dialogue, Friedrich
and member of the International Naumann Foundation for
Commission on Intervention and Freedom
State Sovereignty, rightly puts

3
 What is RtoP?
An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect
R ecognising the failure to
adequately respond to the
most heinous crimes known to
humankind, world leaders made
a historic commitment to protect
populations from genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity at
the United Nations (UN) 2005
World Summit. This commitment,
entitled the Responsibility
to Protect, stipulates that:
4
1. The State carries the primary
responsibility for the protection
means to protect populations
from these crimes. If a State fails
of populations from genocide, to protect its populations or is in
war crimes, crimes against fact the perpetrator of crimes,
humanity and ethnic cleansing. the international community
must be prepared to take
2. The international community stronger measures, including
has a responsibility to assist States the collective use of force
in fulfilling this responsibility. through the UN Security Council.
3. The international community Since the end of the Second
should use appropriate diplomatic, World War, an international effort
humanitarian and other peaceful has been undertaken to protect
civilians in armed conflict and
prevent genocide, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes. In
1948 the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide was
adopted by the United Nations,
and entered into force three years
later. The Convention was the
steppingstone in the international
communitys attempt to ensure
the horrors witnessed during
the Holocaust would never
occur again. However, the
resounding promise of Never
Again would prove to be hollow.
in Cambodia, Rwanda, and
Bosnia demonstrated massive
failures by the international
community to prevent mass
atrocities. Thus, near the end of the
1990s there was a recognised
need to shift the debate about
crisis prevention and response:
the security of the community
and the individual, not only
the state, must be priorities
for national and international
policies.

The end of the 20th Century

marked a change in the nature
of armed conflict: large inter-
state wars were replaced by
violent internal conflicts, where
the vast majority of casualties
are now civilians. The genocides

Source: International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect 5

 LIs Work on RtoP
Foreword
Liberals have been at the forefront of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine since its inception
in 2001. Liberal International (LI) which counts more than 100 political parties and affiliates
among its membership has actively advocated this humanitarian principle. This chapter
offers a glimpse at the progress of LIs RtoP activities since the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty of Canada released the Responsibility to Protect report in 2001.

LI advocacy on RtoP
2004: Liberal Mission visited Darfur, Sudan
Liberals including Mr. Jasper Veen (then-LI Political Adviser) visited Darfur, Sudan, where armed conflict
had produced thousands of refugees. To draw international attention to the situation in the northeast African
country, Mr. Veen presented a report to Liberal Internationals Executive Committee meeting in San Jose,
Costa Rica, where he made an early call on the African Union to step in and resolve the situation.

6
Sanctions on the government alone will not make the Sudanese
authority more trustworthy, he noted. The report concluded by
indicating that a clearly mandated African Union force, which permits
the use of forces if necessary, would be required to stem atrocities.

2005: Resolution on RtoP adopted by the 51st Congress (Sofia,

Bulgaria)
Delegates from the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the country
from which the historic RtoP report was published, seized the
agenda at LIs 51st congress by tabling a resolution on RtoP

to LIs highest decision-making body for the first time. This
There must now be a
resolution provided the doctrine with a central platform for serious commitment
promotion and debate amongst international liberal leaders. from all governments
The adopted resolution stated that LI would seek the evolution to the development of
of international law to build a coalition for RtoP and develop the effective mechanisms
international communitys thinking and action to unite for human such as comprehensive
rights. The Congress also adopted a resolution on freedom and and coordinated early
security, calling for appropriate sanctions against regimes offering
support for terrorists. Building on LIs earlier RtoP work, the
warning systems and more
investment in preventive

resolution drew attention to the human rights violations in Darfur, diplomacy.
Sudan, urging immediate action from UN on the humanitarian issue.
-- Lord Robertson
(LibDems,UK),
The Lord Garden Memorial
Lecture, June 2008

7
 2006: Panel on RtoP at the 54th Congress (Marrakech, Morocco)
In November, as a context of the LI 54th Congress in Marrakech, Morocco,
Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire (LPC, Canada) led a panel on RtoP.

2008: Liberals express outrage over Kenya violence

Liberals around the world came together with one voice to express
their outrage at the violent fallout following the 2007 Presidential
elections in Kenya, which cost hundreds of lives. In his statement,
Leader of the Liberal Democrats Party in the UK, Rt. Hon. Nick
Clegg MP (Liberal Democrats, UK) said that the UK has a moral
responsibility to lead the international community in tackling this crisis.

2008: LI calls on the African Union to intervene in Chad

As the security situation in Chad deteriorated, leaving more than 1,000
people injured in its capital NDjamena, Liberal International called on the
African Union (AU) to take action and intervene to prevent further violence. It is the duty of Liberal
International and its member
parties to remind people, all
over the world, of their
2011: Liberals call for further international action in Libya
Liberals around the world called for further international action
responsibility to protect, and
that is the priority of the new

against the violent, thuggish regime of Muammar Gaddafi. While LI Human Rights Committee.
the UN, EU and individual countries had imposed sanctions on the
-- Richard Moore (LI Patron;
regime earlier in the year, the then-LI President, Hans van Baalen
LibDems, UK), at the RtoP
MEP (VVD, The Netherlands), went further and issued a statement Conference, October 2011
calling on the UN Security Council to enforce a no-fly-zone above Libya.

8
Then-Vice Chancellor of Germany, Guido Westerwelle (FDP, Germany), brought forward the idea
of appointing a special international envoy to evaluate and coordinate humanitarian efforts. Prior to
the 57th Congress held in Manila, The Philippines, a draft Resolution on Responsibility to Protect was
proposed by Democraten 66 (D66, The Netherlands), Centerpartiet (Sweden) and International Federation
of Liberal Youth (IFLRY). Underpinning the ambitions of the proposing political organisations, the
resolution sought to inspire governments around the world to vote in accordance with the spirit
of RtoP at the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, without being selective or biased.

2011: Liberals call for further international action on Syria

As violence escalated against anti-government demonstrators in Syria, liberal
leaders called for urgent intervention. The then-LI Vice President, Abir Al-Sahlani MP
(Centerpartiet, Sweden), urged the UN to step in and work harder to tackle the situation.

2011: RtoP Conference (London, United Kingdom)

In the margin of Liberal Internationals 187th Executive Committee meeting in London, United Kingdom,
LI organised a conference on RtoP in October 2011. The conference consisted of 3 panels, discussing RtoP
in principle, in practice, and its future. Participants reaffirmed that RtoP is a legal concept but
warned that its interpretation and application is expressed with a regional bias. Intervention should be
maintained until there is certainly no potential for atrocities to resume, insisted Sam Rainsy MP
(Cambodia National Rescue Party, Cambodia). Highlighting the challenges of RtoP, Lousewies van der
Laan (D66, The Netherlands), drew on her experience as a former Chief of Cabinet to the President of
the International Criminal Court (ICC), noting that the Rome Statue Treaty had not been ratified by key
players like USA, Russia and China; it only dealt with 3 issues: ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity
and war crimes; and it can only deal with activities which had been exercised by state leaders,

9
 not non-governmental actors. Han ten Broeke MP (VVD, The Netherlands) pointed out we should
not forget the primary responsibility to protect rests in the sovereign states. To follow up the event, Mr.
Ingemund Hgg (LI Patron, Sweden) urged liberals to promote the RtoP discussion beyond the political elites.

2011: ELF Seminar on Libya and RtoP (Brussels, Belgium)

At the seminar organised by the European Liberal Forum (ELF) in November, Lord Paddy Ashdown
(LibDems, UK), High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002-06), addressed a seminar regarding
Libya and the future of liberal interventionism. Mr. Joris Voorhoeve (D66, The Netherlands) also took part
in the seminar and indicated that Libya offered a good example of how things should be done, adding
that it was not a complete success as one had to take responsibility for the aftercare of intervention.

2012: Resolution including RtoP was adopted at the 58th Congress (Abidjan, Cote dIvoire)
Against the backdrop of a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria, LIs 58th Congress in Abidjan, Cote
dIvoire, included the RtoP principle in the World Today Resolution, after reaching an overview of the geo-political
situation tabled to every congress. Followed by a breakfast meeting on the RtoP issue, the Congress expressed
belief in the need to create safe zones in the north and in the south of Syria and guarantee humanitarian
corridors. The resolution added that only international intervention would turn the tide of massacre. The
resolution reiterated that any solution in Syria must be taken in accordance with the will of and full
involvement of the Syrian people, without which the country could not find a durable solution for the crisis.

2013: Human Rights Committee Panel on RtoP in Syria (Beirut, Lebanon)

With the conflict in neighbouring Syria raging, liberals from around the world came together in Beirut,
Lebanon for LIs 190th Executive Committee meeting. Organised by the Human Rights Committee of Liberal
International, a panel on RtoP in Syria debated How Should Liberals Deal with the Situation in Syria? Is

10
Syria the end of RtoP? While the international cooperation was
regarded indeed as an important step, Lord John Alderdice
(LibDems, UK) stressed that the West had in fact driven
Syria to further isolation. He urged some responsibility
from the international community in order to address
major underlying regional tensions that sustained violence.

2014: Meeting of Liberal Parliamentarians at UN Human Rights

Council
The second Liberal Internationals annual liberal parliamentarians
meeting was held within the framework of the 26th session
of the UN Human Rights Council in June. Under the themes

Protection of Human Rights in Areas of Conflict: Cases of Highest
International Priority, participants noted that liberals should It must be a main task
unite to project a common, peaceful voice of the conflict in Syria. and responsibility for
Without cooperation we cannot make a significant contribution, liberals and liberal
parties to be driving
the parliamentarians noted. After meeting with UN Deputy High
Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Alexander Aleinikoff, the meeting and active in discussions
about the principles of

concluded that LI and liberal parties from around the
world should act as a catalyst for the world community while responsibility to protect.
proximity with local communities on the ground is crucial.
-- Ingemund Hgg (LI
Patron, Sweden), in the
follow-up note on the
RtoPconference

11
 2015: Human Rights Bulletin on RtoP
The second edition of LI Human Rights Bulletin, published
in March, focused exclusively on RtoP. In the articles Hon. Lloyd
Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1996-2000) (LPC, Canada)
urged supporters and practitioners to build on the RtoP framework
so that it can form the basis of effective international action in the
protection of people, and get away from loose coalitions of the willing
with limited rules of agreement, and sporadic coordination. Mr. Chito
Gascon, The Philippines Human Rights Commissioner and member
of the LI Human Rights Committee (Liberal Party, The Philippines),
wrote of internal armed conflicts blighting several countries
across Southeast Asia. These conflicts have not yet undermined the
positive economic development of the region, noted Mr. Gascon,
however if left unattended substantial development gains made
in the region risked being compromised. Offering practical advice,
he called for the introduction of a reform plan for RtoP, including
the early warning mechanisms that prevent escalation of violence.
Everything must be
done to ensure universal
compliance with human
rights and to provide

2015: Written Statement on RtoP presented to the United Nations

for prompt and effective
recourse when non-

Human Rights Council (Geneva, Switzerland) compliance occurs.
In the 10th anniversary year of the adoption of the Responsibility
to Protect Principle, Liberal International presented a written -- Chito Gascon
(LP, The Philippines),
statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council, entitled
LI Human Rights Bulletin,
Responsibility to protect ten years on: ed. 2, 2015

12
strengthening the global approach to the prevention and elimination of mass
atrocities. Drawing on the situation in Syria, the statement called upon the
international community to invest in development, economic capacity and democracy-building
in fragile states as a first step to prevent mass atrocities. The statement also urged the
international community to formulate a strategy to tackle atrocities committed by non-state groups.
LI pledged to promote public awareness on RtoP, as well as developing a roadmap for the future.

13
 R toP
2015
conference
Brussels
overv iew
O n 10th December 2015, ten
years after the adoption of RtoP
principles by the member states
of the United Nations World
Summit, Liberal International
brought together politicians,
academics, and diplomats to
debate and identify whether
the doctrine can survive under
the strains placed on RtoP in
The Responsibility
to Protect: Ten Years
on. What Next?
international relations today. Parliament in Brussels, having
been received the previous
Together with its partners Alliance evening at the headquarters of
of Liberal and Democrats for Open VLD (LI full member) by
Europe Group (ALDE - LI full LI Past President, Ms. Annemie
member) and Friedrich Naumann Neyts. The meeting was conducted
Foundation for Liberty (FNF - over three distinct sessions.
LI cooperating organisation),
Liberal International convened
the meeting in the European
15
 Opening
Remarks
C hair of Liberal Internationals
Human Rights Committee and
application of the principle the faulty implementation and
in practice. RtoP enables the even the potential for abuse of
LI Vice-President, Mr. Markus international community to work RtoP; liberals should work on and
Lning (FDP, Germany) opened against the inhumane activities, improve the system, he concluded.
the meeting by outlining the which used to be regarded as a
tensions between the perception domestic issue, noted Mr. Lning.
of RtoP and the inconsistent However the world has seen
16
Is RtoP Dead?
Syria, Ukraine and beyond
C haired by LI Past President, (Future Movement, Lebanon)
Annemie Neyts (Open VLD, detailed the humanitarian costs
Belgium), the opening panel of sustained violence in Syria and
laid out the ongoing challenges also in the neighbouring states.
facing RtoP today. Past President In Lebanon, approximately 1.5
Neyts recalled the initial steps million refugees have entered the
undertaken by Liberal Internationalcountry since March 2011. Today,

to promote RtoP as part of the Mr. Habib noted, almost half of the
global work of the international population in Lebanon is Syrian, The political divisions
liberal family. It was under her resulting in a major security issue and the security
presidency that LI initiated a in the country. Introducing the challenges affected
the functioning of the
study visit to Sudan and brought
the importance of RtoP to the
attention of Liberals world-wide.
Lebanon Crisis Response Plan
drafted in 2015, Mr. Habib called
for an inclusive discussion on
[Lenanese] government
and other constitutional

institutions.
economy, politics and security
Delivering a first-hand account from which both the Lebanese -- Khdor Habib, MP
of the consequences of the and the refugees would benefit. (Future Movement,
conflict in Syria, Mr. Khodr Habib Ukraines former Minister of Lebanon)

17
 Defence, Mr. Anatoliy Grytsenko,
spoke of the abuse of RtoP
in Ukraine, where Russia has
intervened under the auspices of
RtoP. Consequently, Ukraine has
now come to the point of no return,
Mr. Grytsenko said. The country is
under pressure to run elections
in the occupied areas, which
Western countries mistakenly
thought to be an effective answer
to the crisis. As an anti-corruption
actor targeting money laundering,
Mr. Grytsenko also asserted
that part of the road to peace
must resolve internal corruption
amongst Ukrainian MPs, even
though Western countries show
hesitation to impose sanctions
against them. He concluded the
presentation by emphasising the
need to implement the Minsk
Agreement, which is supported
by Germany, France and Russia.
18
Member of the European
Parliament, Ilhan Kyuchyuk,
of MRF - LIs ethnic Turkish
minority party in Bulgaria (LI full
member) cautioned of the ease
with which interventionism can
quickly slide into imperialism.
To avoid the abuse of RtoP,
Mr. Kyuchyuk said, a universal
responsibility to protect should
always be grounded in education
and promoted internationally.
Despite criticisms of RtoP in the
context of the Syrian crisis, Ms.
Angela Patnode (USA) who was
representing the International
Coalition for the Responsibility
to Protect presented examples
where RtoP has been successfully
applied in less obvious ways.
Citing 10 UN resolutions to
investigate the situation in Syria
in addition to numerous countries
accepting refugees, Ms. Patnode
noted the different forms of
RtoP implementation. RtoP is
facing some challenges yet, she
added, there are also positive
facts about the norm: states have
shown an increasing willingness
to implement RtoP; cross party
parliamentary groups on atrocity
prevention have been formed
in countries such as UK; and the
UN General Assembly has also
continued to participate in national
dialogs on RtoP. Furthermore,
there has been an increase in the
number of NGOs and civil society
activists working on the issue.
 L
Debate
D iscussion centred primarily on
possible solutions to the crisis
in Syria. Vice-President of the
International Network of Liberal
Women, Ms. Khadija el-Morabit
(Morocco), presented a speech
from the UN Human Rights

L
Commissioner, urging a Syrian
force to provide safe passage for Dalen (The Netherlands), inquired Obstacles facing effective
what more could be done to
humanitarian assistance to civilians implementation of RtoP were
trapped inside Syria, with support overturn the poor media coverage also set out. Mr. Jonas Claes
from the international community. on the conflict in eastern Ukraine. (United States Institute of Peace,
In reply, Mr. Grytsenko called for USA) highlighted two major
Mr. Petras Austrevicius MEP the support of Western regions to issues that often distort ones
(Lithuania), cited corruption prevent the corruption, criticising understanding of the principle:
among local members of the Wests faulty attempt to
parliament in Ukraine as one impose a stay calm and dont (1) that the implementation has
reason why intervention failed provoke policy, which added to a double-standard as most media,
before the mission had taken off. the current disorder. He put a clear and in turn the wider public,
Chair of the Liberal International emphasis on the implementation measure the consistency of RtoP
LGBTI Work Group, Mr. Frank van of the Minsk Agreement. by military intervention alone and

19
 (2) while protection is ideal, it
is often difficult to apply in
practice owing to an absence of
clear justification for mobilising
the required resources without
an obvious conflict, further, a
clear metric for measuring the
success of prevention means
making the case to governments
and international bodies is
problematic.
LI Treasurer, Mr. Manfred
Eisenbach (LI German Group,
Germany), highlighted
as problematic that the
implementation of RtoP may
consist of regime change, which
non-democratic countries - such as
Russia and China determinately
resist. However, RtoP is not dead,
considering the successful case
of Libya, Mr. Kyuchyuk said.
Offering a proactive suggestion

Conversely, the case of Macedonia
presented by LI Secretary General,
Mr. Emil Kirjas (Macedonia)
offered a rare and positive example
of conflict prevention, where
apart from the military security
component, the international
community assisted political
parties and civil society in engaging
in dialogue among different social
actors, ethnicities and religions.
to improve the application and
success rate of RtoP, Mr. Kyuchyuk
requested an enormous overhaul
of the UN Security Council in
order to incorporate a moral
obligation for human rights.
human rights is universal.
If we seek to translate
responsibility to protect
from words to actions
the world needs to
accept our liberal vision
that responsibility for
-- Ilhan Kyuchyuk, MEP
(ALDE Party, MRF,
Bulgaria)

20
Working Lunch
Advancing RtoP within the framework of LI HRC

D rawing
Internationals
on
global
Liberal
reach,
LI President of Honour, Mr.
Hans van Baalen MEP (VVD,
The Netherlands) noted the
strength of liberals globally to
unite and advance the RtoP
agenda. Adherence to the rule of
international law was defined as
paramount by Finlands former
Prime Minister, Ms. Anneli
Jtteenmki MEP (Keskusta, that there is a credibility gap
Finland) while Mr. Austrevicius,
praising the participation of LI
to the international discussion
on RtoP, emphasised on-going
missions such as the task force
in Kosovo and the drone attacks
in Syria. Mr. Lning concluded
in the use of RtoP, which calls
for the liberals everywhere
to be proactive in addressing.

21
The Future of RtoP
Beyond the Transatlantic Cooperation
S haring his optimism ahead of
the second panel debate,
principle. ASEAN, he noted, now
has a Human Rights Committee.
the Executive Director of the
Council for Asian Liberals and Drawing on the precarious border
Democrats (CALD), Mr. Celito area her country shares with
Arlegue (Philippines), offered Russia, the Ambassador and
a positive progress report on Permanent Representative of

RtoP and conflict prevention in
Asia. Mr. Arlegue explained that
Asia has developed a supportive
environment to promote the
values underpinning RtoP;
the 3 pillars of the Association
of SouthEast Asian Nations
(ASEAN)political security,
economy, and social contract
are connected to the RtoP
Georgia to Belgium, Luxembourg
and the European Union, Her
Excellency Natalie Sabanadze
(Georgia), charted Georgias
understanding of the RtoP
project: it is a doctrine about good
intentions regarding international
crisis and about both national
and international responsibility.
Speaking from personal
I think with the evolution
of international law... we
can say that there is an
emerging consensus of
redefining sovereignty in
terms of responsibilities
and away from rights.
-- Ambassador Natalie
Sabanadze, (Georgia)

23
 experience of the abuse of RtoP, responsible for this lack of integrity. it is a device for international
the Ambassador recalled that Promoting mechanisms cooperation to mitigate egregious
Russia rhetorically used RtoP through which RtoP can be acts of violence. Development
for intervention in Georgia and, strengthened was the subject of of robust institutions is also
more recently, in Ukraine; Ms. the presentation by Mr. Jonas essential for preventing scenarios
Sabanadze warned of further Claes, who drew attention to that might give rise for the
possibilities for exploitation of two areas: (1) that RtoP must need of an RtoP response.
the principle for political ends. reflect the right expectations and
(2) that RtoP does not equate to
Expanding on the risks associated military intervention. In limiting
with RtoP, Natalie Sabanadze coercive activity, Mr. Claes noted,
noted that identifying when a RtoP is first and foremost a
mission might have reached political tool, which enables the
its conclusion is an international community
inherent complexity
It is a moral to take the next step in
when applying RtoP, tool used prevention of atrocities.
adding that, it is difficult
to identify whether the
to consider Addressing the excuses
norm is applied evenly appropriate levied regarding
or merely reserved for
the Global South. Ms.
behaviours. international law, the
USIP senior research
Sabanadze saw a lack of consensus officer explained that RtoP does
and the weak authority of the UN not aim to make new law and it
Security Council as being partly is not a tactical blueprint; instead

24
Debate

L
Addressing the concerns of Ms.
Annemie Neyts as to whether
the United States considers the
European Unions perspective on
issues related to RtoP as being
important, Mr. Claes highlighted
the example of roundtable

L
debates between the USIP and EU
officials in Brussels, emphasising historical studies. Earlier instances taking place in 2005, when the UN
the fundamental, transatlantic of intervention good and bad Outcome Document was signed,
relationship as a source of can inform a lack of understanding delegates discussed what potential
momentum on RtoP, a position on the causes of conflict. This view action can be taken by liberal
endorsed by Mr. Arlegue. More was endorsed by Ambassador politicians in the current era, with
sceptically, H.E. Natalie Sabanadze Sabanadze, who pointed to a the ambassador reaffirming the
cautioned against the problems recent flourishing of academic need to continually debate subject
associated with excessive interest in RtoP, whilst Mr. Claes and identify new challenges as
outsourcing to local activists. emphasised the need to identify they occur. The panel concluded
a goal for every intervention. with all speakers calling for further
Applying a holistic approach to the understanding, discussions
trajectory of the RtoP principle LI With H.E. Natalie Sabanadze and engagement to solve the
Patron, Mr. Richard Moore, (UK), noting that discussions around barriers associated with RtoP.
proposed the need for comparative RtoP differ greatly in 2015 to those
25
 Concluding Comment
L iberal International President
of Honour, Lord John Alderdice
(Liberal Democrats, UK), summed
up the discussion by underlining
that RtoP is a moral obligation. The
liberal parliamentarian, who is also
the Director of the Centre for the
Resolution of Intractable Conflict
at the University of Oxford, warned
that it was unhelpful that RtoP
has become synonymous with
military intervention. Compelling
delegates to acknowledge that
the current plague of violence
is a public health matter, Lord
Alderdice urged liberals to
26
coordinate their activities with
NGOs, businesses, philanthropists
and academics in order to build
the early conflict warning system.
10 years is not enough for a principle
to be applied, he concluded,
therefore LI has a responsibility
to promulgate RtoP and
establish a behavioural principle.
RtoP is a responsibility
to protect human beings
regardless of which side
of the border they are.
-- Lord John Alderdice (LI
President of Honour, UK)
Conference Attendees
Group Photo

27
 Expert
outlook

R toP
on
 Jonas Claes
United States Institute of Peace

U nited
Peace
States
has a
Institute of
long-standing
of the Atrocities Prevention Board.
Currently we remain engaged in this
expectations. Too often RtoP is
equated in the literature and policy
involvement in the field of atrocity domain through policy dialogues, articles with the use of military
prevention and RtoP. Most and an interagency course on force. It is a deep-rooted
noteworthy was our involvement in atrocity prevention tailored to mid- misperception that the invocation
the Genocide Prevention Task Force, to senior-level U.S. practitioners. of RtoP automatically allows for
co-chaired by former Secretaries Practice of RtoP as a Political the use of military force. RtoP cannot
Madeleine K. Albright and Bill Cohen. Instrment. be equated with humanitarian
The Task Force Report presented intervention. At its core, RtoP is
one of the most impactful policy Let me start by raising an about preventive non-coercive
blueprints USIP produced to date. important conceptual issue. One action: early warning, mediation, etc.
way to strengthen the position
Many of the recommendations were of RtoP in the international policy The toolbox for RtoP consists of
implemented, including the creation domain is by setting the right a broad range of tools, including

29
 diplomatic, economic, legal,
and military instruments. RtoP
instruments can be coercive and
cooperative, and operational or
structural. If the context permits, the
instruments gradually move towards
a higher level of intrusiveness. In
my presentations or guest lectures
at universities I will always ask the
students the following question: Is
RtoP is primarily a moral, political,
legal, or tactical instrument?
There is no wrong answer to this
question, but I generally rank these
adjectives in order of relevance.
First and foremost, RtoP presents
a political commitment. RtoP is
meant to trigger an automated
consideration of your response
options, in the face of imminent or
ongoing atrocities. When it occurs,
what options do we have? RtoP also
has strong moral underpinnings, as
it guides towards appropriate state
behavior. In his 2011 speech,
30
President Obama stressed
this point, emphasizing
that Preventing mass
violence is our moral duty.
But morality is not the #1 answer,
since its practice faces significant
political constraints. Is RtoP a legal
instrument? Some say it is not,
as it does not create new legal
obligations. RtoP merely realigns
existing sources of international
law, like the Genocide Convention,
or International Humanitarian Law.
Others may argue RtoP presents a
source of customary law. But it could
be argued that, so far, the practice
remains too inconsistent. Finally, I
would not consider RtoP a tactical
instrument. RtoP does not explain
the how part; what instruments
are the most useful in given context?
The State of RtoP in the US, and the
Promise of Transatlantic Engagement
in the United States, government
officials predominantly adopt
the atrocity prevention lens.
The RtoP label is rarely applied.
Originally genocide prevention was
the label of choice, but that
presented too high of a threshold.
Operationally RtoP and AP look 95%
the same; it is mostly a different
label for similar activities. In
addition, U.S. officials generally
consider RtoP to be one part of a
broader U.S. atrocity prevention
toolbox. Atrocity Prevention (AP)
has advanced significantly in the
U.S., not just politically, but also
institutionally and operationally.
Politically, the first Obama
Administration did a lot to advance
this agenda. AP was considered
a priority in several strategic
documents. In a 2011 Presidential
Study Directive (PSD-10), Obama
highlighted the prevention of mass
atrocities and genocide as a core
national security interests and a
moral responsibility of the U.S.
The debate remains whether it is
in fact a national security priority: strategies, by scanning the horizon atrocity analysts are active. And
Three types of justifications could be for emerging risk and fragility, and dedicated courses have been
provided for this: proposing coordinated action. established, through the Foreign
The APB faces considerable Service Institute, the military
1.Direct threat to U.S. challenges however: It remains academies, and the Pentagon.
territory and its citizens. an unfunded mandate, it is very
dependent on supportive Operationally there have been some
2.Threat to international stability. personalities, and faces the risk signs of progress as well. In terms
of lower prioritization with the of intelligence gathering and the
3.Threat to values and principles upcoming change in Administration. prioritization of atrocity risk. There
the USG stands for the consensus However, more important than the has been the first ever National
within the U.S. political establishment institution itself is the ripple effect Intelligence Estimate on Global
about the first justification has not PSD-10 created, beyond the APB. Risk of Mass Atrocities, the APB
yet extended to the second and third The involvement informed U.S. policies
justification. Institutionally some of the USG in AP While the stated on Burma, CAR
progress has been made as well. At goes far beyond commitment of and South Sudan,
the NSC, the position of Director for the APB meetings the U.S. and EU to and there has been
War Crimes and Civilian Protection and activities.
was created, and in August 2011, Within several
preventing atrocities the mixed U.S. and
international
President Obama authorized the agencies, dedicated should theoretically experience in places
creation of the interagency APB. personnel has been allow for cooperation, like Libya; Kyrgyzstan
appointed, and the coordination is in 2010; Syria, etc.
This Board, comprised of senior Task Forces have
officials from across the USG, been set up. Within surprisingly low While the stated
is responsible for developing the intelligence commitment of
atrocity prevention and response community, over half a dozen the U.S. and EU to preventing

31
 atrocities should theoretically allow
for cooperation, the coordination
between both governments and
non-governmental organizations is
surprisingly low. However, there is
some low-hanging fruit within reach.
apply repressive measures, does
present the RtoP community
with a sizeable conundrum. The
international normative weight of
RtoP has problems competing with
the national security-driven impulses.

On Risk Assessment, conversations Yet, there has been significant

have been held between EEAS and progress in making RtoP lingo more
the CSO unit at the U.S. Department central to Security Council discussions;
of State. A key actor to include in we are yet another step away from
these conversations is the private our traditional ad hoc approach,
sector, which invests significantly towards a normalization of RtoP, and
in risk analysis already. In part, the automated consideration of options.
future of RtoP will depend on the
way it engages with competing or
alternative international security
priorities, like violent extremism.
Some argue that counter-terrorism
and atrocity prevention are simply
different ways to talk about the
same problem, i.e. violent attacks
against civilian populations (Be
llamy). But the risk of CVE efforts
undermining atrocity prevention
objectives, or emboldening states to

32
 Angela Patnode
International Coalition for the Responsibility
to Protect
In hearing the other panelists
presentations, its clear that theres
contexts when comparing
responses to Syria to other RtoP
a lot of frustration in how RtoP situations, particularly Libya.
has been utilized or not utilized in Finally, Ill go over some real
Syria and Ukraine. I can assure you institutional progress that shows that
that this frustration is very much commitment to RtoP is not dead, but
shared by RtoP practitioners as well. actually thriving in a number of ways.
Nevertheless, I want to take a As many, including Heather
slightly different angle during this Hurlburt and Homa Hassan have
presentation by first discussing stated, RtoP has been implemented
how actors have upheld their RtoP in Syria, and arguably in the very way
in Syria. Next, Ill go over why its founders intended - who did
its necessary to recall the different not want to legitimize military
intervention and saw the goal
of RtoP as prevention and early
response. Ill outline four general
categories of how RtoP has
been operationalized here.
First, international organizations
have reminded the government of
Syria of its RtoP dozens of times,
while the international community
has cited its own responsibility
under Pillars II and III in this regard.
All parties, even Russia and
China, agreed that mass killings were
33
 occurring early on in the crisis, and instrumental in documenting these
that the situation is a legitimate abuses, and will be a central tool
matter for the international when we have the opportunity
community to debate and to hold perpetrators to account.
respond to. This stands in sharp The General Assembly, meanwhile,
contrast to the Balkans, where has passed five resolutions,
such factors took years to establish. some of which have served as
shadow resolutions of vetoed
Second, though we are all aware of Security Council drafts. They
the failures of the Security Council to therefore were not only
properly address the crisis, other condemning the events in Syria
UN organs and mechanisms but were also condemning
have acted in an unprecedented Security Council inaction. On
fashion, within their mandates, three occasions, the GA even
when responding to the crisis. The specifically called for Assads
Secretary-General, for example, has resignation, resolutions which only
used his power to send observers, 12 states voted against out of 193
chemical weapons investigators, states. While these resolutions
and a special representative. do not save lives, they have
The Human Rights Council has and will continue to have an
passed ten resolutions on the impact on behavioral development
Syrian crisis, one of which within the UN system, and can
established a Commission of assist in shifting the international
Inquiry to investigate violations of community towards action in
international humanitarian law. the long run.
The Commission has been
34
Meanwhile, when the Security
Council has been able to act, it has
done so in often innovative and
creative ways. The most famous
example of this is Resolution
2118, which supported the OPCWs
procedures or eliminating Syrias
chemical weapons stockpile. This
was followed up by the more recent
Resolution 2235, which established
a Joint Investigative Mechanism to
identify those responsible for using
chemical weapons. In addition,
another unprecedented move by the
Council includes Resolution 2165,
which allowed for humanitarian aid
delivery across borders. This was the
first time that the Council authorized
an operational measure without the
consent of the Syrian authorities.
Thirdly, regional organizations
have also taken exceptional
measures. The Arab League and
the Organization of the Islamic
Conference suspended Syria, with
the Arab League also sending an has tracked human rights violations, harsh indifference shown to past
observation force and passing including through, inter alia, the use examples of atrocities. As pointed
sanctions. Several states joined of torture in 27 detention facilities out by Thomas Weiss, the steady
the Arab League in passing such and the use of barrel bombs and stream of condemnations levied at
sanctions, including Norway, U.S., cluster munitions on civilians. Assad stands in sharp contrast to
Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Amnesty International uncovered the deafening silence that greeted
Canada, Turkey and the EU. the use of starvation as a tactic the 1982 Hama massacre, in which
In addition, external of war by the Syrian regime. Assads father killed 40,000. The
countries, particularly Lebanon, ICRtoP member Permanent Peace strong UN response, which I outlined
Jordan, Turkey, (and now the EU) have Movement held a training for Syrian earlier, is also remarkably different
absorbed millions of Syrian refugees, activists on civilian protection and than the UNs quiet and deliberate
despite heavy economic and social conferences on the possession/use of inaction to the genocide in Rwanda.
tolls. By accepting such refugees, small arms and light weapons in Syria. For a norm that is only ten years
these states are helping to fulfill their old, this is significant progress.
Pillar II responsibilities. All of these measures,
When the Security of course, probably Moreover, it remains unclear
Fourth, civil society Council has been able provide scant comfort whether additional measures
groups have
to act, it has done so to the millions of Syrian under RtoP, such as the use of
consistently monitored victims of atrocities. military force earlier in the
the crisis, with the in often innovative As considerable as conflict, would have saved
Syrian Observatory for and creative ways they may be, we more Syrian lives. Though the
Human Rights serving can all agree that international response to Syria is
as the only organization keeping a they have been insufficient to often compared unfavorably to
death toll after the UN announced protect populations in Syria. the famous RtoP intervention in
it could no longer verify reports. However, it becomes impressive Libya, these were two extremely
ICRtoP member Human Rights Watch when you compare it to the different situations. Of course, the

35
 most obvious difference is that the and ethnically diverse than Libya. not backed up empirically.
NATO intervention had the approval
of the Security Council. Additionally, Finally, Libya is full
There was significant The Security Council
however, the likelihood that a military of desert, with some has referred to RtoP
intervention in Syria would have scattered cities. Syria reason to believe in 38 resolutions,
succeeded was much lower than has several densely that the cure of all but three of
that of Libya, for four reasons also populated urban military intervention which have come
outlined by Weiss. First, Libya had areas, which made after the NATO
a cohesive opposition movement, surgical airstrikes
would have been intervention.
which was run inside the country, not only implausible worse than the
whereas Syrias is split in terms of but likely to cause disease
ideology, politics, and geography. Nor a lot of civilian
does the Syrian opposition have a deaths. We must not Meanwhile, participation in the
clear chain of command to organize forget the original aims and annual GA dialogue on RtoP has
operations, protests, or supplies. purposes of RtoP, which is to protect continued to grow steadily. The UN
Secondly, in Libya, 75% of the populations from atrocity crimes. Secretariat has continued to improve
population lived in areas under rebel There was, and still is, significant its capacity to respond to atrocity
control, but the Syrian opposition reason to believe that the cure of crimes, including by
cant maintain their hold over major military intervention would have implementing the Secretary -
population centers. Third, there was been worse than the disease. Progress Generals Human Rights up Front
a far greater anti-Qaddafi movement on RtoP Id now like to go beyond initiative, which aims to better the
among the Libyan people, but in Syria and Libya to discuss concrete, UNs ability to prevent and respond
Syria, a sizeable portion still support institutional progress on RtoP. First, to large-scale violations of human
Assad or are waiting to see how though many say that Libya blowback rights. Beyond the UN, states have
the tide turns. This makes sense, has killed RtoP, particularly within shown an increased willingness to
as Syria is much more culturally the Security Council, this assertion is uphold their primary responsibilities

36
to protect. Such steps have included
appointing an RtoP Focal Point, of
which there are now 52. Other states,
including the U.S. and those in Africas
Great Lakes region, have taken
this a step further by developing
national architectures to prevent
or respond to atrocities. Still
others, including the UK, have
developed Parliamentary Groups
aimed at increasing legislators
involvement in atrocity prevention.
Lastly, but certainly not least, my
organization, the International
Coalition for the Responsibility to
Protect, has seen a growing number
of civil society organizations join the
movement to implement RtoP. This
is a crucial sign of progress in our
eyes, as civil society often serve
as the primary preventers and
responders to atrocities, particularly
in those states, such as Burma
or Sudan, where the state is the
perpetrator of such crimes. All this is
to say that, despite the obvious
difficulties that we have confronted
in turning RtoP into practice, the
global community still believe in
RtoP. The norm is here to stay.
In conclusion, Id like to again
emphasize that RtoP is a principle,
not a tactic a norm intended
to steer action. Therefore, saying
RtoP has failed in Syria, Ukraine,
or anywhere else is misguided.
Rather, it is the international
community who has clearly failed
to meet these obligations and live
up to its RtoP. Will the so-called
application of RtoP, particularly
third pillar responses, always
be selective? Probably, yes. But
this selectivity and failure to fully
implement RtoP just serves to
underscore the need for swift,
preventive acttion before a crisis
devolves into a state in which
international consensus is needed.
Thank you
37
 Natalie Sabanadze
Ambassador of Georgia to Belgium,
Luxembourg, and the EU

T his is a topic which is quite

close to my heart. I have not
thought about it for a few years.
I left it off in 2012 and it was
interesting to go back and to look
how the debate has evolved. RtoP
first of all is a doctrine born out of
good intentions and it is about
international responses to national
crisis. It has both national and
international dimensions and
it is about both national and
international responsibilities. RtoP
is premised on a very
conception of
specific
sovereignty:
parameters for legitimacy for
international action. This is why the
sovereignty as responsibility as overall topic of this panel is very
opposed to sovereignty as right important. We need to find a
which was probably was never consensus among the international
absolute but at least this was the community which involves both
prevailing understanding of the global south and north. It
sovereignty over the 20th is important to take criticisms
Century and less so today. that are out there about the
concept of RtoP seriously
As its core RtoP is concerned with as this is how we can refine the
legitimacy. The whole raison dtre framework and come up with
of RtoP is an attempt to lay down better solutions to the challenges

38
which will increase the
legitimacy of the doctrine.
It is important that we minimize in
these discussions the possibility for
misuse and abuse of RtoP which
is realistic. There is nothing
worse than a good concept born
out of good intentions being
used for wrong purposes and for
actions to justify bad intentions.
I come from Georgia as you know
and the personal encounter,
not academic but the real one,
with RtoP was for me in 2008
when Russia used the RtoP
rhetoric to justify its military
intervention in Georgia. It soon
dropped this language because
it didnt fly and it was quite
clear but at least the justification
to invade Georgia was to protect
citizens which were living
in the breakaway region of South
Ossetia. In his speech Foreign Minister
Lavrov referred to the international RtoP is a pretty good framework
norm of RtoP and the constitution and much better than any of
of Russian Federation saying that its decedents and any kind of
it is a Constitutional obligation to discussion on humanitarian
exercise RtoP when it comes to the intervention. There is an attempt to
safety and security of their citizens. move the debate, and particularly
recently when I said that I looked
Later the same logic to a degree again at how the debate has
was also used in Ukraine but less so evolved and especially how the
in the RtoP term which is also quite new special Advisor on RtoP to
interesting. Why was RtoP specifically the UN Secretary General, Jennifer
not used in Ukraine but was used Welsh, whom I knew from my days at
in the case of Georgia? Perhaps it Oxford is interpreting this, it is very
says something about where this clear that there is an attempt
notion stands now and whether it is to move away from military
a bit more contested perhaps than it intervention and to look at RtoP in
was then. If we go back much more general
to this idea of looking There is an terms and not
at criticism about RtoP increasing focus about coercive action.
and how it is practiced on prevention There is an increasing
I think we have to look focus on prevention
at both conceptual and
and prevention and prevention of
operational challenges of atrocities atrocities. This means
that this doctrine faces. emphasizing the three
pillar approach that you have also
Conceptually I have to say that mentioned the Chairman (Mr Celito
39
 Arlegue). The three pillar approach is extremely attractive but it getting involved at all. It is difficult
precisely about focusing on is very difficult to exercise in practice. in the existing international system to
national and international I was working, before assuming this mobilize resources for prevention
dimensions. It is about national post, at the OSCE High because it is about
responsibilities of states and Commissioner for It is difficult in a non-event (about
international dimension comes national minorities: an the existing something that it is not
in the form of supporting states institution mandated international system supposed to happen
and capacity building to meet their specifically to do
to mobilize resources and doesnt happen).
responsibilities. It is only in the third conflict prevention. As a result it is very
pillar that we come with the idea We knew how for prevention difficult to measure
of action but again it is not only difficult it was to because it is about a success. How do you
about military action. There are mobilize resources non-event measure success of a
other means and considerations (political, material non-event? How can
such as prudence and reasonable and intellectual) to do the work you be sure that your
prospect for success qualify this of prevention. One problem that prevention or the efforts of the
action. Other methods can be is often encountered is either too prevention have actually worked?
used such as quiet diplomacy, much interest from those states Who can claim the credit? Sometimes
mediation, international pressure, concerned or involved or too this is also important. In the world of
referral to court, etc. Such little interest. If there is too much politics people want to claim credit
conceptualization of RtoP is interest then simply there could and be able to say that the investment
less contentions. Still challenges be an interest not in helping with that they have put into a specific case
remain as to how this can the prevention but leading to actually brought some dividend. It is
be applied in practice. certain outcome of the conflict. very difficult to measure and prove.
Of course it is not cheap. If we
Let me say a few words about If there is too little interest then speak about structural prevention
prevention. I think rhetorically it is again it is a problem of not this links to capacity building: the

40
second pillar. Then it takes a lot of state is not to help them to effectively
resources and consistency which is suppress decent but to help them
a long term approach which again to be able to deal with decent and
is not always easy to sell. In many conflict in a democratic framework.
respects the logic of doing politics This is not easy to do. It cannot be
the way it is today is not conducive done quickly and it is very difficult
to prevention unfortunately. When to do in times of crises. This is
it comes to state building I think a bit of double edged sword.
this is a very important dimension. The problem of unattended
This is precisely what we were consequences basically which
doing also in that office: truing to every goodaction may have.
assist states in building capacity, All of the above here and
to create legislative frameworks, particularly when we add here the
to ensure that human rights are third pillar and that is deciding
protected and basically help them on when, how and where to get
meet their responsibilities. involved and the considerations such
as reasonable prospects for success,
But there again it is a delicate balance where it will work, is it prudent, is
when it comes to Can RtoP realistically it going to make the
the situation of situation worse, etc.
crisis because you
be applied consistently when all this comes
can get involved and or is it always to mind we end up
you can strengthen going to be exercised in facing the problem
the state a bit too the case of weak, of selection. This
much. The idea of is something that
strengthening the small, failing states has been raised
many times. Can RtoP realistically
be applied consistently or is it always
going to be exercised in the case of
weak, small, failing states that are
often from the South or so called
Global South? This of course very
much undermines the legitimacy of
the doctrine among non-Western
states and the initial resistance
to RtoP from non-Western states
very much can be explained by this.
Of course there is a big moral
question: simply because we
couldnt realistically protect or
exercise RtoP in Chechnya in
1994 does it mean that we
should automatically not do the
same in Central Africa in 2014?
We are talking about saving lives
and each one counts. Other
conceptual challenges to building
consensus around RtoP include
the conception of sovereignty. You
mentioned ASEAN and that there
is a growing acceptance of RtoP.
41
 ASEAN countries are much more
traditional in their understanding
of sovereignty. This move away
from sovereignty as right to do
basically whatever and to expect
non-intervention from other states
is still very strong among some
countries and some regions.
Regional interpretations still vary
also among countries with different
sizes. In Europe where pulling
of sovereignty is much more
accepted this is probably not so
much contested concept but in
other cases it is.
Nevertheless I think with the
evolution of international law
and practice and use of remedial
succession even and growing cases
of international action to prevent
and respond to large scale atrocities,
we can say that there is an emerging
consensus of redefining sovereignty
in terms of responsibilities and away
from rights. There are antecedents
42
to this also in history and in There is an overlap now, especially,
international theory that go back to with an anti-terrorist agenda.
the 16th and 17th century from the
original thinkers on sovereignty. Other Operationally, the biggest challenge
issues that we need to address are the is receiving timely authorisation form
limited diffusion of the language of the right authority timely here is
RtoP: it is very much important as we live
a UN terminology and
What happens in an anarchical system
there are different when atrocities are where there is no
uses and different committed by non- overarching authority
understandings of it state actors? over sovereign and
in different regional supposedly equal
and sub-regional contexts. You (Mr. states, so the question of right
Celito Arlegue) mentioned ASEAN. I authority is a c-challenging one.
am more familiar with the OSCE, Individual states do not have a right
where there is a lot of use of in international law to intervene
the prevention language: conflict in the affairs of other states. Only
prevention, conflict resolution, early the Security Council has such right,
warning mechanisms its not RtoP acting under Chapter 7 of the UN
language. I think in terms of coming up Charter, and given the propensity
with some common understandings of states to use human rights as
it might help to find some consensus a justification for hostile acts against
on the terminology. There is also other states, and I use the example
the problem of non-state actors of Georgia, unilateral intervention
what happens when atrocities are on humanitarian grounds should
committed by non-state actors? not be permitted in law. So the
Security Council is the closest we
get to the right authority and
on the one hand this is prudent
because we have a clear diversity
of interests within the permanent
five, so the likelihood that those five
will find a consensus on intervention
unless there is a very, very strong
case, is small. On the other hand
this is also a problem because
consensus among the five is very
difficult to achieve and normally
trying to get there delays the process
in a situation of crisis and this is very
costly in terms of lives. The lack
of consensus or Security Council
authorisation means we have
unilateral or multilateral intervention
but without Security Council consent.
The problem here is that this sets a
dangerous precedent that can be used
by other states for different purposes.
Another operational challenge
which was made evident by the
case in Libya is how to stop mass
killings effectively and ensure they
do not reoccur without, actually,
regime change. This was one of
the main criticisms of the use of
RtoP in Libya: that it resulted in
regime change. Can we realistically
say that when we have a regime
that perpetrates these crimes that
it should remain and that this is how
we will try to prevent the killing it
is very difficult to do it and when you
have a regime change then what do
you replace it with because leaving
a power vacuum can be very
dangerous and harmful for the very
lives we are trying to save. So then
there was this idea of responsibility
while protecting: I think this is very
interesting and worth looking into.
I think it is very important to
be having this debate because
this is the way we can address
challenges, minimise risks, and
advance the cause, which I believe
fundamentally is a just cause.
43
Liberal
visions

R toP

on
 Lord John Alderdice
LI President of Honour, UK
W hy are we talking about RtoP
today? This was the question posed
by Liberal Internationals President
of Honour, Lord John Alderdice,
as he evaluated the contributions
of the numerous expert panellists
who had contributed to the debate.
Ten years on from its acceptance by
the United Nations we are focussing
on the important principle that we
have a responsibility to protect each
other across borders, but it is hardly
a celebration of ten years of success.
When the United Nations was
established after World War II, the
first aim in its charter was to deal
with international conflicts and bring
peace. Yet in the list of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) just
signed off this September in New
York, everything else comes ahead
of peace. All that remains is a feeble
mention in SDG 16 (out of the 17) that
speaks of justice, good governance
and ending all violence. The UNs
primary focus has been lost and we are
descending again into global conflict.
The same has happened with the
European project. It was forged out
of the ashes of World War II to ensure
that we never had another terrible
war in Europe, but because our
leaders have become preoccupied
with free trade, the euro and a place
at the top table of world affairs, the
primary purpose - peace in Europe
has been forgotten, and the whole
EU project is now in grave danger.
45
 We must refocus on peace and
conflict, and RtoP has a key role.
In unpicking the patchy and
inconsistent application of RtoP,
Lord Alderdice reminded delegates
that RtoP is a principle not a set
of policies, which may succeed
or fail. We do not say of the Ten
Commandments that because You
shall do no murder has not stopped
killing we should abandon the
principle that murder is wrong. The
question is how we implement the
principle. After 10 years there are
already many lessons to be learnt
about applying the principle of RtoP.
One that should have been clear from
the beginning, is that while military
intervention may be necessary for the
implementation of RtoP, it should be
the last option, not the primary one.
In finding a sustainable and successful
framework for RtoP a much more
holistic approach is necessary. For
46
example, the private sector has a role on concern for their own people.
to play because of its economic power LI has a responsibility to maintain a
and trans-border reach. Instead concern for each other across borders
of portraying violence as a conflict and continue to promulgate RtoP.
between good and evil, we need to
examine it as the major global public
health challenge. Can we persuade
philanthropists, foundations and
business owners to focus on this as
much as they have on malaria, AIDS
and tuberculosis? If we are to succeed
in protecting each other across
borders we need to understand
much more deeply the processes of
violent conflict, and as politicians we
must acknowledge our need to work
with others. If it is left only to politics
and political structures to prevent
conflict we are unlikely to succeed.
noted the LI President of Honour.
Summing up, Lord Alderdice
concluded, RtoP faces a profound
challenge in the current uncertain
global environment, as people are
tempted to turn inwards and focus
 Celito F. Arlegue
Executive Director, Council of Asian Liberals
and Democrats (CALD)
T his afternoon, we were privileged
to hear the interventions of two
of the session about RtoP in Asia,
particularly Southeast Asia,
distinguished speakers from the emphasized three (3) points:
diplomatic corp and the policy 1) RtoP is compatible with the
community Her Excellency Association of Southeast Asian
Natalie Sabanadze and Mr. Jonas Nations(ASEAN) goal of establishing
Claes. From the specific cases of a peaceful, just, democratic, people-
Syria and Ukraine that we tackled centered and caring community;
in the first panel, we moved to 2) ASEAN has existing
a more theoretical, policy-oriented institutions and mechanisms that
discussion in this panel, particularly can help in the implementation of
in relation to the future of RtoP. RtoP such as the ASEAN Charter,
the ASEAN Intergovernmental
In my brief comment at the beginning Commission on Human Rights
I
(AICHR), the ASEAN Declaration on
Human Rights (ADHR), the ASEAN
Commission for the Protection
and Promotion of the Rights of
Women and Children (ACWC),
among others; and
3) the Southeast Asian context,
however, remains ripe for the
onset of conflicts (ethnic, religious,
resource, etc.) which may
necessitate the application of the RtoP.
In the presentation of Ambassador
Sabanadze, she noted that RtoP
47
 was borne out of good intentions 2) What should we do if non-state actors of risk analysis and assessment
and that it continues to be a are involved in the atrocities?; and a reiteration of his claim that
good framework for humanitarian 3) How do we stop mass killings RtoP should focus more on conflict
intervention (vis--vis military without regime change? Mr. Claes, prevention rather than military
intervention). She cautioned, in his intervention, agreed with the intervention.
however, that RtoP could also good ambassador as regards the The presentations of our two
be abused, citing in particular conceptualization of RtoP. He pointed distinguished speakers, and the
how Russia used the concept in out that RtoP should increasingly be points raised during the open
justifying its actions in Georgia. viewed as a preventive, non-coercive forum, led me to believe that we
Hence, she argued for the tool. He then moved on the political, agreed on the following points.
reconceptualization of RtoP by moral, legal and tactical aspects
moving away from military of RtoP, noting in particular that, 1) Reconceptualization of RtoP It
intervention to conflict an appropriate should be emphasized that RtoP
prevention. This might It should be invocation of the includes a range of tools, from the
not be easy though as emphasized that concept is not preventive to the coercive. In the
the logic of doing RtoP includes a range necessarily followed past, the success of RtoP was usually
politics is not conducive
for prevention.
of tools, from the by effective action. equated with the success of military
intervention. There should be a shift
preventive to the He also raised some from this line of thinking towards
She then raised very coercive issues and problems risk assessment/conflict prevention.
valid questions regarding in transatlantic This rethinking, however, might not
the future application of RtoP: relations which could impact on RtoP, be easy because of the following
highlighting specifically the need reasons: (a) it is difficult to mobilize
1) How do we ensure the consistent for a common understanding of the support and resources for a non-
and non-selective application of RtoP? concept. Finally, he proposed that event (i.e. conflict prevention); and
RtoP should move in the direction (b) a world threatened by

48
terrorism would increasingly
seek a coercive response.

2) Consensus on RtoP It is
important to note that even
the US and the EU are not
entirely in agreement about the
conceptualization and application of
RtoP. While this is understandable,
a common ground is imperative for
the future of RtoP. This could be
facilitated by studies/exchanges on
RtoP best practices, or by setting of
clear, definite goals
whenever RtoP is applied.

3) Prevention of RtoP Abuse

The international community
should be vigilant of attempts to
use RtoP to achieve selfish,
egoistical ends. RtoP should
also be consistently applied to
all comparable cases, otherwise
it may lose its credibility,
particularly in the developing world.

49
 Irwin Cotler
Former Attorney General of Canada

I take the responsibility to protect to

be, among other things, the struggle
against hate, against racism, against
mass atrocity, against indifference
and against the crime of genocide;
all this as part of the larger struggle
for international justice, for human
rights and human dignity in our time,
and which underpins the importance
and compellability of RtoP as a
foundational principle with respect
to the pursuit and implementation
of international justice, human
rights and human dignity.
We meet also in the 70th anniversary
year of the liberation of Auschwitz
the most brutal extermination
camp of the 20th century a
reminder of horrors too terrible to be
believed, but not too terrible to have
happened and a reminder too that
Never Again must not be an idle
slogan, but a remembrance to act.
We meet also on the fifth anniversary
of the killing fields in Syria that
have gone un-addressed let alone
un-redressed and have led to the
greatest humanitarian catastrophe
since the Second World War. I have
met with survivors from the Syrian
killing fields the scorched earth
policy that has targeted innocent
civilians, beginning with the criminal
Assad regime and then with ISIS.
Simply put, we have a situation now
of more than 300,000 killed, some 12

50
million displaced people, and close to
5 million refugees a kind of mocking
rejoinder to the Responsibility to
Protect doctrine. When I say this, its
not so much a rejoinder to the doctrine
as it is a rejoinder to our inaction
with respect to giving expression and
implementation to that doctrine.
rejoinder to the RtoP doctrine, but
that it is a mocking rejoinder to
what happens if you dont take RtoP
seriously, and if you dont implement
RtoP as was initially conceived.
As Vclav Havel and Desmond
Tutu put it, and I quote:
And so, on this anniversary
of anniversaries, we need to
ask ourselves: What is it that
we have learned? And no less
importantly: What is it that we
must do? And where is RtoP in all
of this, in both the prevention and
protection against mass atrocities?

I remember that those of us who The Responsibility to Protect is the Perhaps the most painful chapter
wrote three years ago again and most significant development in is the one documenting the
again about the need to give defense of human rights since the mass atrocities of the Rwandan
expression to the RtoP doctrine were codification of those rights enshrined genocide to read is to weep, not
told at the time, Well, you know, if in the Universal Declaration of only at the horrific slaughter of
you intervene, this is going to lead Human Rights in the aftermath of innocents, but at the inaction and
to civil war, this is going to lead to World War II and the Holocaust. Yet, indifference which made it possible.
sectarian warfare, this is going to six years (they wrote this in 2011,
lead to jihadism in Syria. but one can say this There are no heroes in Samantha
All the things we were RtoP is a now 10 years later) and Powers telling, save for one:
told would happen if frustratingly millions of preventable Canadian General Romo Dallaire,
we intervened, I hate to elusive promise deaths after the adoption who not only warned of the
say, happened because of RtoP by the 2005 impending genocide in his fax of
we did not intervene early and World Summit, its implementation January, 1994, but would plead for
effectively. If you want to know the remains far from a reality. Instead, help again and again. Warnings,
tragedy of Syria in relation to RtoP, (as they concluded) RtoP is a which went ignored, unheeded,
it isnt so much that it is a mocking frustratingly elusive promise. if not rebuffed and repudiated.

51
 Seven years later, in 2001, 192
states unanimously adopted
the Responsibility to Protect
doctrine, the most important
normative, if not juridical doctrine.
It is not only Rwanda or Darfur whose
genocide is also so unspeakable
because it was also preventable. As
we meet, as I mentioned, in Syria, the
deaths, destruction and devastation
continue unabated, with the daily
commission of mass atrocities
and crimes against humanity.
And so, we must ask ourselves:
What have we learned and, more
importantly: What must we do?
And where is RtoP in all of this? In
particular, how do we pour content
into what we mean by RtoP; and
so as to ensure that RtoP like
Never Again does not become
an idle slogan or clich, but can
serve for remembrance and action.
52
What is to be done? agency council in government
that would be a focal point for the
The time has come for governments prevention and combating of these
and parliaments in concert with civil international crimes and which
society to reaffirm our commitment would also reflect and represent our
to R2P, whose implementation remains commitment to R2P in that regard.
as inadequate as it is incomplete.
4. To take the lead in the development
1. To reaffirm the Responsibility to and implementation of international
Protect as an organising idiom for human rights and international
our human rights foreign policy as humanitarian and criminal law, as
an organizing idiom of part of combating the
our commitment to We need to ask culture of impunity.
international justice. ourselves what is We have been too
it that we must do silent also in the
2. To take the lead in matter of supporting
making mass atrocity where is RtoP in and assisting the
prevention war all of this? International Criminal
crimes, crimes against Court in combating
humanity, ethnic cleansing, and the culture of impunity that is so
genocide as a centerpiece of our systematic and widespread in the
foreign policy as it must be a focal point international community today.
of our international security doctrine.
5. We need to take the lead in peace
3. To establish a mass atrocities protection, invoking the paradigm of
prevention board, an inter- human security as being a focal point
as well of our RtoP. When I was Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, our government invoked
the paradigm of human security as
a model for combating international
terrorism, which itself is anchored
in two foundational principles.
a. We need to see international
terrorism as constituting an assault
on the security of democracy and the
rights of its inhabitants to life, liberty,
and security of the person. Therefore,
anti-terrorism is the promotion of
the protection of the democracy and
human rights of human security.
b. We must always ensure that
anti-terrorism law and policy must
always comport to the rule of law,
adheres to constitutional rights,
prohibits torture, and must never
single out minorities for differential
and discriminatory treatment.
6. Finally, with regard to promoting,
protecting and implementing RtoP
are the partnerships between
government, parliaments, civil
societies and NGOs. If you want to
know why the Ottawa Landmines
Treaty was such an important and
successful initiative, it was because
of the involvement of governments
and parliaments, in an inclusive
partnership with civil society and
NGOs in the implementation of RtoP.
I hope and trust that this 10th
anniversary of the RtoP doctrine
may not only be which it is an
important moment of remembrance,
but may it also be a remembrance
to act and give expression to
the implementation of RtoP.
53
 Khdor Habib
Member of Parliament, Lebanon
I would like to focus in my
intervention on the Syrian refugee
crisis. I believe that this crisis is one
of the biggest refugee crisis ever
witnessed in history. The pictures
of today illegal migrants trying to
cross to Europe is an indicator
of this crisis. More than 700,000
illegal migrants tried to cross to
Europe this year by crossing the
Mediterranean to Italy and Greece.
500,000 of them tried to cross to
Greece more than 60% of them
are Syrians.
54
Lebanon is today one of the countries
that suffered the most from the
refugees crisis. The magnitude of
the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Lebanon:
-Since March 2011, the number
of people residing in Lebanon
has increased by at least 30%
-The number of Syrians residing in
Lebanon has reached 1.5 Million
-1,187,000 Syrians are registered
with UNHRC as refugees
-Today, 1 in 4 is a refugee in Lebanon
-50,000 Lebanese have
returned from Syria
-Around 50,000 Palestinian refugees in
Syria have moved to Lebanon since 2011
-16% of Syrian refugees live
in 2000 Informal Settlements
-26% of the population of Lebanese
prisons are Syrian nationals
-There is a significant increase
in human trafficking of Syrians
and Palestinians from Syria
-86% of Syrian refugees live in
242 villages in Lebanon that
are considered to be poor
-The Lebanese and the Syrians are
becoming partners in deprivation
-Since March 2011, the economic Officially, and since 2011, the Lebanese been unable to elect a President
losses due to the crisis in Syria have government has adopted a policy of since May 2014. The parliamentary
exceeded $7.5 Billion disassociation elections have been postponed
-Since 2011, the labour The main concern towards the Syrian twice since 2013. Finally, and unlike
force in Lebanon have remains that the crisis. Nonetheless, its predecessor, this government
increased by 50% different economic, some political groups has taken few decisions that
and unemployment in in Lebanon have been aimed at managing the Syrian
Lebanon have doubled social and publicly involved in displacement into Lebanon.
since 2011. More than developmental fighting in Syria in
4 years since the challenges should not support of the Syrian The main concern remains that
start of the Syrian
turn into political and regime. Hezbollah, the different economic, social and
revolution, we cannot for example, which is developmental challenges should not
anymore speak only security risks represented in both turn into political and security risks.
about the humanitarian the government and The government is working closely
consequences of the Syrian the parliament, has been military with local NGOs, international NGOs
crisis on Lebanon. We need to involved in the Syrian war since 2013. and international organisations. The
expand this discussion to include Around 1000 fighters from Hezbollah government of Lebanon has also
other consequences such as: lost their lives fighting in Syria. The drafted together with the UN a joint
The Demographic Impact, The political groups represented in the plan Lebanon Crisis Response Plan
Economic/Development Impact government have been unable to for 2015-2016 to ensure that the
and the Security/Political Impact. agree on the issue of establishing humanitarian response to the
The Lebanese people are divided formal camps. The political divisions Syrian crisis benefits Lebanon and
regarding the Syrian crisis and and the security challenges affected helps in stabilizing the country.
regarding the different policy the functioning of the government
options towards the Syrian and other constitutional institutions.
refugees in Lebanon. The Lebanese Parliament has

55
 Ingemund Hgg
LI Patron, Sweden
T he principles of Responsibility to
Protect are compatible with basic
liberal ideas. In this note I will focus on
important issues of terminology and
the need to develop an understanding
of conditions when responsibility to
protect applies. An understanding
to be deeply rooted in the minds of
the populations of our nations, which
means continuing public discussion.
Basic human rights are universal.
This was evident when the UN
56
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was adopted by the UN in
1948. The great religious traditions
take for granted the principle of
common humanity. Islam, Buddhism,
Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism,
Hinduism, Taoism, and more of their
variants share a recognition of the
human conditions. Their explanation
of it and their solutions for it may
differ but not their concerns.
The idea of universal human rights
shares the recognition of one
common humanity, and provides a
minimum solution to deal with its
miseries (A world made new.
Eleanor Roosevelt and the unive
rsal declaration of human rights, by
Mary Ann Glendon, 2001, p 233).
Even if Glendon in her excellent book
does not make a reference to non-
religious beliefs it would be easy and
natural to add such views as part
of the deep concerns for basic
human rights. Basic human rights are for example,) gives arguments for the wants to regard sovereignty as
definitely not only a Western idea. acceptance of economic and social responsibility and on that line go
And they constitute a solid basis for the rights as real human rights in his great from sovereignty as
principles of responsibility to protect. work The idea of justice (2010, p control to sovereignty as
355 ff.). Even if he does not discuss responsibility in both internal
Human security includes as responsibility to protect functions and
formulated in the ICSS Report 2001 directly I find his views on This does not mean external duties
concern for human rights, but human rights compatible that sovereignty as (Op.cit., p. 13). This
broader than that in its scope and with conditions for control is outdated does not mean that
increasingly providing a conceptual responsibility to protect.
framework for international action
but that sovereignty sovereignty
is
as control
outdated but
(Op.cit., p. 6). Human security The ICSS commission as responsibility that sovereignty as
means the security of people their wants to avoid the must be added responsibility must
physical safety, their economic and phrase humanitarian be added, even if
social well-being, respect for their intervention. Humanitarian such responsibility can come into
dignity and worth as human beings, organizations object to the use conflict with the control definition
and the protection of their human of humanitarian when it comes of sovereignty. Acceptance of the
rights and fundamental freedoms. military intervention and the principles of responsibility to protect
(Op.cit., p. 15). The meaning of to commission understands that. For liberals acceptance of what
be broader in scope than human (ICSS Report, p. 9). Further, the responsibility to protect is and stands
rights is not clear to me. Human commission prefers not to talk for is important. This is not easy as
rights declarations include both first- about a right to intervene this responsibility is not a simple
generation and second-generation and instead talks about a clear responsibility and further, not
rights. Though the latter rights have responsibility to protect. a static thing. An understanding
been criticised as diluting the and acceptance in the populations
concept of human rights Amartya Sen, Similarly the commission in our countries of responsibility to

57
 protect must therefore build UN secretary general report from
on discussion and elaboration 16 February 2009 it is stressed that
over time with new experience States should engage in a process
and interpretation. of self-reflection to understand
how RtoP principles are universal
Similar to the fact that human and can also be integrated in
rights is not something you can local values and standards.
learn once and for all. The
wordings are not in themselves A liberal task Suchself-reflection
norms but can in the longer time involves neverending open
perspective strongly influence discussions and dialogues in
development of norms for action. our countries. It must be a main
It is not enough that the political liberal task and responsibility
leaders and elites understand the for liberals and liberal parties
responsibility to protect principles. to be driving and active in
As to moral appeal, preventing, such discussions about the
averting and halting human suffering principles of Responsibility
all the catastrophic loss and misery to Protect.
that go with slaughter and ethnic
cleansing and mass starvation
are inspiring and legitimizing
motives in almost any political
environment (Op,cit., p. 71). We
should not underestimate the need
for discussion and dialogue about
the principles in our countries. In the

58
 Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Member of the European Parliament, Bulgaria
D ear colleagues, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. Having
As the European Parliament is said that it is valuable to note
one of the international pillars the fact that in the post-Cold
of Human rights protection it is a war situation of world politics the
great honour for me to welcome norm Responsibility to Protect
you here to day and to discuss with has always been related to
you important human rights issues. the emergence of humanitarian
Responsibility to protect is interventionism. Of course, this
an international security and is not a problem as long as a
human rights norm that aims humanitarian intervention aims
to address failures of the to promote and encourage
international community to respect for human rights, to
prevent and stop genocides, enforce an UN resolution or
to perform a moral obligation.
However, when interventionism is
used as a cloak for other interests
then it is a form of cultural
imperialism (or aggression). Namely,
then we are facing the problem of
selectivity of interventionism and
consequently of responsibility to
protect. The problem of selectivity
or double standards is that major
powers, including Security Council
holders of a veto, will always
be able to resist pressure, and
59
 ultimately intervention, in a way that we try to avoid resentment by non- a local level (governments and public
smaller and weaker powers cannot. liberal states, put emphasis on opinion) but also on international
Thus, in the eyes of many experts, state rights and keep to one (international organisations
political observers, colleagues principles of international order and international community). If
and most importantly public (sovereignty and domestic we manage to succeed, then state
opinion, interventionism and in jurisdiction). What sovereignty will be conditional and
particular the norm is more chilling is the not absolute, consistent actions
of responsibility to All of this is a fact that the problem will be taken and there will be
protect is dead. NATO result of our of selectivity will sustaining commitments to others.
interventions in Kosovo inactivity because go beyond Syria and
and Libya can serve as Ukraine, for instance In my liberal vision, responsibility
good examples of how
we try to avoid Burundi. What we to protect is still alive and for sure it
we managed in a resentment by have to do to solve the will always be alive since the norm
capacity of international non-liberal states problem of selectivity? originates from liberal tradition and
community to avoid We liberals define thinking. However, if we seek to
war crimes, ethnic cleansing and ourselves as people with translate responsibility to protect
crimes against humanity. In light of cosmopolitan perspectives rather from words to actions the world
this, it is more than important to than communitarian ones, people needs to accept our liberal vision.
note that our inactivity in cases who believe in universal rights over Here, comes the question how this
of Syria and Ukraine already has community rights, who are tolerant will happen. The answer to this
resulted to the deaths of half a towards different cultures and who question is very simple indeed,
million people, unseen since Second respect both individual and collective through education and again
World War refugee crisis, state rights. Therefore, we seek universal education in liberal values and norms.
destruction and upsurge of responsibility for human rights.
international terrorism. All of this To achieve this goal, we need to Thank you!
is a result of our inactivity because promote our liberal vision not only on

60
 Richard Moore
LI Patron, UK
T his is a time when the Responsibility
to Protect has seldom been so
relevant and seldom been so
difficult to fulfil. Its neglect in
the recent past is now leading
to a crisis, which according to the
President of the European Council,
Donald Tusk, and the Prime
Minister of France, puts the future
of the European Union in peril.
The failure to protect the victims of
President Assad of Syria, even when
he used chemical weapons on his
own civilian population, led to the
mass exodus of refugees now
multiplied by the atrocity of Daesh.
This mass of desperate people has
produced such different responses
in the member states of the
European Union that its cohesion is
threatened as never before. While
the murderous attacks of Assad are
not explicitly aimed at the Sunni
population of Syria that is their
effect together of course with any
other Syrians who oppose Assads
tyranny. The atrocities of Daesh
are boasted of being part of a jihad
to exterminate Jews, Christians,
Yazidis, and any Muslims who do
not share Daeshs corrupted view
of Islam and its wild distortion of
the Caliphate. The Caliphate of the
Ottomans for generations practised
religious toleration that the raison
dtat of Daeshs version is to
destroy all other religions and all
Muslims judged to be heretics.
61
 No government however seems
willing to invoke the principle of
the responsibility to protect in Iraq
and Syria. If it is to remain a dead
letter we may soon be faced with
even greater horrors elsewhere. If
extremist Islamists gain home in
Egypt the eight million Christian Copts
will be in peril. The brutalities of the
present dictatorship in Cairo provide
plenty of excuse for the armed
rising of the Egyptian majority who
voted for the Muslim Brotherhood.
make a reality of the responsibility
to protect is seemingly obvious.
It is a gloomy prospect on which the
Liberal International must continue
to focus. There is hope that the great
victory of the Canadian liberals, who
did so much to foster the idea of the
Responsibility to Protect will give
renewed impetus to one of the
moral imperatives of our time.

It is certainly the duty of civilised

governments to concert plans for
protecting the Copts rather than
relying on the persistence in power
of the dictator Sisi. When we are
witnessing also the beginnings of a
repetition of the Rwandan horror
in neighbouring Burundi and, while
it has vanished from the screens
and the headlines, the continued
ethnic cleansing of Africans by
the Army in Darfur, the need to

62
why
Responsibility
to protect
MATTERS
 Overview of RtoP Development
1948
After World War II the UN
resolution 260 of 9 Decem-
ber 1948 adopted the
convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
as a direct response to the
horror of the Holocaust.
64
1994 2001
The modern turning The Canadian government
point for the notion released a report
of Responsibility to which held that
Protect (RtoP) came state sovereignty is a
out of the Rwanda responsibility, and that the
experience. international community
could, as a last resort, use
military intervention to
prevent mass astrocities.
 2005 2009
At the 2005 World Summit The UN Secretary General,
member states included Ban Ki-moon released a
RtoP in the Outcome report which argued for the
Document. The next year implementation
the UN Security Council for RtoP and its arguments
formalized were subsequently
their support of RtoP by discussed at the 2009 UN
reaffirming the provisions General Assembly.
made in this document.

Source: Our World in Data 65

 Number of active genocides and politicides*
around the world, 1955 - 2015
11

10
# of genocides & politicides

1955 1975 1995 2015

years

*Politicide are the destruction of a political movement Source: Our World in Data
66
Map of genocide and politicide deaths around
the world since 1955

in terms of the
number of deaths, 0 being less than
300 and 5 being more than 256,000
Source: Our World in Data 67
 about us
Liberal International (LI) is the world federation of over 100 liberal and
progressive democratic political parties. LI was founded in 1947 to strengthen
liberal protection from totalitarianism and communism. The founding
Oxford Manifesto is widely considered as one of the most important political
documents of the 20th century. It has since become the pre-eminent network for
promoting liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of
law, tolerance, equality of opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy.

The European Dialogue Programme of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom
examines and analyses the European integration process from a liberal point of view.
We develop and discuss liberal policy solutions through international conferences and
seminars and link partners from developing and transition countries with decision-
makers at the EU level.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE/ADLE) is the current
liberalcentrist political group of the European Parliament. It is made up of MEPs
from two European political parties, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Party (formerly the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party) and the European
Democratic Party, which collectively form the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe.

68
 Published by:
Liberal International
1 Whitehall Place
London, UK
SW1A 2HD

With the support of:

European and Transatlantic Dialogue
Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom
Avenue de Cortenbergh 71
1000 Brussels
Belgium
www.fnf-europe.org

Edited by: Liberal International

Cover photo courtesy of UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

69