Laura Webb
POLI 480
Research Paper Proposal
The current conflict in Syria has brought significant attention to the United Nations initiative known as The Responsibility to Protect (or R2P). This doctrine is based upon the principle that “sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility (U.N. World Summit, 2005) .” To enact this duty, R2P suggests a 3 pillar strategy which addresses the following: ( U.N. World Summit, 2009)
1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the UN Charter.
Since its establishment in 2005, R2P has proven to be controversial, igniting criticism on whether it has been previously effectively employed; or as other critics have concerned, the very nature of R2P is an overstep that violates a state’s national security. My research paper will examine this critique, in conjunction with the range of criticisms made toward R2P. I also will also study its past usage with the international community. I am curious to know the precise way in which R2P has been put into practice, and is so, what was the general consensus on its ability to be effective? Were any suggestions made towards improving its future use? Any interesting conclusions? I am interested to see if any significant points regarding its past usage perhaps could perhaps be used to predict its future role within the International community. The sources listed below will serve as a stepping block into my research on The Responsibility to Protect.
1.http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml
2. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/130830/Obama-canadians-UN-responsibility-to-protect-Syria-strike
3. http://www.un.org/en http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICRtoPGAdebate.pdf/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677
4. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/17/responsibility_to_protect
5. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mnp/gr2p/2011/00000003/00000004/art00006
I think your topic is quite interesting and I like that you've specified exactly what you'll be researching in your paper. The only thing I'd say is since this is an argumentative analysis, you should include what stance you are taking on this issue (for or against).
ReplyDeleteHi Laura. I have a similar question that was answered in my paper, but it has to do with Libya and the Arab Spring, why there was an intervention. I found that the implications of why we intervened in Libya did correlate with Syria and found that the situation in Syria was different enough from Libya which is why we did not intervene. For example, there was no veto from the UN Security Council when they were voting on the no-fly zone for Libya when Medyevev was in power in Russia, when the Council was voting on Syria Putin would not allow any action to take place without a veto. In Libya there was a transitional council in place that would take over the reigns of governing and the transitional council that traveled abroad to advocate on behalf of the Libyan people. In Syria the rebels are very fragmented and have not done the same type of lobbying that the leaders of the transitional council have done. In short by looking at both cases we can see why there was intervention in Libya and why there was not any intervention
ReplyDelete