PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

TLE0020
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
 INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

• Crimes that are transnational in character or

are committed in breach of specific
international instruments: egs:-
– drug trafficking, people smuggling, arms smuggling
– hijacking, terrorism, piracy, slave trading
– War crimes, genocide
– Normative list : environmental vandalism, corporate
crimes???

3
 THE CURRENT SCOPE OF
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
• The jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court (Article 5) provides an indication:
– Genocide
– Crimes against humanity
– War Crimes
– the Crime of aggression
• Terrorism and drug related offences to be
considered for inclusion at the First Review
conference
4
 War Crimes: Nature and Scope
• Geneva Law (International Humanitarian Law)
• Hague Law (Laws of War)

5
 THE GENEVA RULES:BACKGROUND

• Introduction: The Legacy of Henri Dunant

(from the battle of Solfireno) and the
emergence of the International Committee of
the Red Cross.

6
 THE FIRST GENEVA CONVENTION
• The First Geneva
Convention 1864: The
Convention for the
Amelioration of the
Condition of Wounded
Armies in the Field
– Neutrality of
ambulance and
hospital personnel in
times of war

7
 THE HAGUE RULES

• St Petersburg Declaration 1868

– banned the use of weapons that caused
unnecessary suffering
• The Hague Rules 1899
– The Hague Rules adopted the provisions of the first
Geneva Convention and banned the:
– dropping of bombs from balloons for a 5 year period
– poisonous gases
– Dum dum bullets
8
 THE 1925 GAS PROTOCOL

• Adopted after WWI following the failure of the

1899 Hague Rules and the widespread use of
gases( eg mustard gas) in WWI
• Adopted as a Protocol to the First Geneva
Convention
• banned the use of poisonous gases and
bacteriological methods of warfare

9
 WWII AND THE IHL
• Treatment of POWs
• Treatment of civilians
• The Holocaust
• The nuclear destruction of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki

10
 THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS

• CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF

THE SICK AND WOUNDED MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES IN THE
FIELD
• CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF
WOUNDED, SICK AND SHIPWRECKED MEMBERS OF ARMED
FORCES AT SEA
• CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF
WAR
• CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN
PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR

11
 CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE
CONDITION OF THE SICK AND WOUNDED MEMBERS OF
ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD

• Art. 12: Members of the armed forces and other persons …,

who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in
all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to

the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse
distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political
opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their
lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in
particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated,
subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not
wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall
conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created
12
 THE COMMON ARTICLE 3
• Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international
character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be
bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
– (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and
those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or
any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,
without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion
or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
– To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at
any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-
mentioned persons:
13
 Internal conflicts and the Geneva
Conventions
• (a) violence to life and person, in particular
murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture;
• (b) taking of hostages;
• (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
• The application of the preceding provisions
shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to
the conflict.
14
 1977 ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS
• Additional Protocol I extends the application of the Geneva
Rules to: armed conflicts which people are fighting against
colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations...
• Additional Protocol II develops and supplements Article 3
common to the Geneva Conventions and applies to all
armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the
Additional Protocol which are between a state’s armed
forces and dissident armed forces or other organised armed
groups which, under responsible command, exercise such
control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry
out sustained and concerted military operations
15
 OTHER INSTRUMENTS LIMITING THE
CONDUCT OF WARFARE
• The Biological Weapons Convention 1976
• Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May
be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have
Indiscriminate Effects (Inhumane Weapons
Convention) 1980
• Protocol II Restrictions on the Use of Land Mines
(Anti-personnel Land Mines), Booby Traps and other
Devises
• The Chemical Weapons Convention 1993
16
 THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT:BACKGROUND
• In December 1989, in response to a request
by Trinidad and Tobago, the General
Assembly asked the International Law
Commission to resume work on an
international criminal court with jurisdiction
to include drug trafficking
• The International Law Commission
completed the draft statute for an
international criminal court and in 1994 and
submitted it to the General Assembly 17
 THE NEED FOR THE COURT

• The ‘missing link’ in the UN legal system:

– The ICJ deals with inter-state disputes; there is a
need for a court to deal with individual
responsibility particularly in matters regarding
genocide, crimes against humanity etc
– "crimes against international law are committed
by men, not by abstract entities, and only by
punishing individuals who commit such crimes
can the provisions of international law be
enforced" (Nürnberg Tribunal)
18
 THE NEED FOR THE COURT II

• To end impunity
• The deterrence factor
• The deficiencies of the ad hoc tribunals
– Why was there been no war crimes tribunal for the
"killing fields" in Cambodia? A permanent court could
operate in a more consistent way.
• The national criminal justice institutions may be
unwilling or unable to act
19
 THE COURT
• Art. 1: It shall be a permanent institution and
shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction
over persons for the most serious

20
 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT(Art.
5)
• The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to
the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole. The Court
has jurisdiction...with respect to the following
crimes:
– The crime of genocide;
– Crimes against humanity;
– War crimes;
– The crime of aggression.*
21
 JURISDICTION (Art. 11)

• [Link] Court has jurisdiction only with respect to

crimes committed after the entry into force of the
Statute.
• [Link] a State becomes a Party to the Statute after its
entry into force, the Court may exercise its
jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed
after the entry into force of the Statute for that
State, unless that State has made a declaration
under article 12, paragraph 3.
22
 WAR CRIMES
• Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
– willful killing, torture, extensive destruction of property not
justified by military necessity, willfully causing great suffering or
serious injury, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages
• Serious violations of the laws of war
– intentionally directing attacks against civilians objects or people
not taking part in the war, rape sexual slavery or forced
prostitution, intentionally directing attacks in the knowledge
that it will cause incidental loss of life or property, mutilation,
killing or wounding treacherously, pillaging towns, employing
prohibited weapons or projectiles

23
 GENOCIDE

• any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in

part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
– Killing members of the group;
– Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
– Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
– Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
– Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

24
 GENOCIDE
any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such:
Killingmembers of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

25
 CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

• Any of the following acts when committed as part

of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack:
– Murder; Extermination; Enslavement; Deportation or
forcible transfer of population; Imprisonment or other
severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law; Torture; Rape,
sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,
enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual
violence of comparable gravity;
26
 THE EXCERCISE JURISDSICTION

• The Court can exercise jurisdiction only where

– one or more crimes committed under Art 5 is referred
to the Prosecutor by a State Party
– one or more of Art 5 crimes committed is referred to
the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under
Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
– The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect
of such a crime in accordance with article 15

27
 Referral by States Art. 14
• A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a
situation in which one or more crimes within
the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have
been committed requesting the Prosecutor to
investigate the situation for the purpose of
determining whether one or more specific
persons should be charged with the
commission of such crimes.

28
Investigation by the Prosecutor Art.
15
• The prosecutors discretion to initiate
investigations that can trigger the exercise of
jurisdiction is limited:
– Prior approval by the pre-trial chamber (Art. 15(3)
– The right of the Security Council to defer the
investigation or prosecution (Art. 16)

29
 INADMISSIBILITY (Art. 17)

• A case is inadmissible before the court if:

– A state with a jurisdiction is willing to investigate
or prosecute the matter
– The matter has been prosecuted/investigated by
a state with jurisdiction
– The offender has already been tried

30
Other Restrictions on Jurisdiction

• A person is not criminally responsible under

the Statute unless the conduct in question
constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 22)
• A person is criminally responsible under the
Statute for conduct prior to the entry into
force of the Statute (Art. 24)

31
 SOVEREIGNTY AND THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
• The US position.(Marc Grossman, Under Secretary
for Political Affairs)
– We believe that states, not international
institutions are primarily responsible for
ensuring justice in the international system.
– We believe that the best way to combat these
serious offenses is to build domestic judicial
systems, strengthen political will and promote
human freedom.

32
• We believe the ICC undermines the role of the United Nations
Security Council in maintaining international peace and
security and is a flawed institution
– ICC is an institution of unchecked power
– dilutes the authority of the UN Security Council (definition of
aggression
– threatens the sovereignty of the United States (the authority
to detain and try American citizens )
– Constraints on the willingness of States to project power in
defense of their moral and security interests
– risk of politicized prosecutions

33
 The Australian Declaration (July
2002)
"The Government of Australia, having considered the Statute, now hereby ratifies the
same, for and on behalf of Australia, with the following declaration, the terms of
which have full effect in Australian law, and which is not a reservation:
• Australia notes that a case will be inadmissible before the International Criminal
Court (the Court) where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State. Australia
reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court. To enable Australia to exercise its jurisdiction effectively,
and fully adhering to its obligations under the Statute of the Court, no person will be
surrendered to the Court by Australia until it has had the full opportunity to
investigate or prosecute any alleged crimes. For this purpose, the procedure under
Australian law implementing the Statute of the Court provides that no person can be
surrendered to the Court unless the Australian Attorney-General issues a certificate
allowing surrender. Australian law also provides that no person can be arrested
pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court without a certificate from the
Attorney-General.
• Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8
will be interpreted and applied in a way that accords with the way they are
implemented in Australian domestic law." 34
 WAR CRIMES AND AUSTRALIA
• The relevant legislation:
• The Geneva Conventions Act 1957
• War Crimes Amendment Act 1988
• International War Crimes Tribunal act 1995

35
 PART 2
A F G H A N I S TA N A N D T H E H I C K S C A S E
DAVID HICKS: THE LEGAL ISSUES

37
 Crimes (Foreign Incursions) Act
• (1) A person shall not:
– (a) enter a foreign State with intent to engage in a hostile activity in
that foreign State; or
– (b) engage in a hostile activity in a foreign State.
– Penalty: Imprisonment for 14 years.
 For the purposes of subsection (1), engaging in a hostile
activity in a foreign State consists of doing an act with the
intention of achieving any one or more of the following
objectives (whether or not such an objective is achieved):

38
 Crimes (Foreign Incursions) Act

• (a) the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the foreign

State or of a part of the foreign State;
• (aa) engaging in armed hostilities in the foreign State;
• (b) causing by force or violence the public in the foreign State to be in fear
of suffering death or personal injury;
• (c) causing the death of, or bodily injury to, a person who:
• (i) is the head of state of the foreign State; or
• (ii) holds, or performs any of the duties of, a public office of the foreign
State or of a part of the foreign State; or
• (d) unlawfully destroying or damaging any real or personal property
belonging to the government of the foreign State or of a part of the
foreign State

39
 Crimes Act Section 24 (Treason)

• Any person who: assists by any means whatever, with

intent to assist, an enemy:
– (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence
of a state of war has been declared; and
– (ii) specified by proclamation made for the purpose of this
paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth;
– (e) instigates a foreigner to make an armed invasion of the
Commonwealth or any Territory not forming part of the
Commonwealth; or
– (f) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding
paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act;
shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treason, and
liable to the punishment of death.
40
 The Geneva Conventions Act 1957

 A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the Conventions
or of Protocols is guilty of an indictable offence.
• (2) For the purposes of this section:
• (a) a grave breach of the First Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an
act referred to in Article 50 of that Convention committed against persons or property
protected by that Convention;
• (b) a grave breach of the Second Convention is a breach of that Convention involving
an act referred to in Article 51 of that Convention committed against persons or
property protected by that Convention;
• (c) a grave breach of the Third Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an
act referred to in Article 130 of that Convention committed against persons or
property protected by that Convention;
• (d) a grave breach of the Fourth Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an
act referred to in Article 147 of that Convention committed against persons or
property protected by that Convention; and
• (e) a grave breach of Protocol I is a breach of that Protocol involving
41
 The US Presidential Military Order
13 November
• By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint
Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title
10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:…
• The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a
United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in
writing that:
• (1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
• (i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
• (ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of
international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused,
threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on
the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or
• (iii) has knowingly harboured one or more individuals described in subparagraphs
(i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and….
42
• Scene from Hotel Rwanda
[Link]
• Rwanda:
[Link]
• Srebrenica
[Link]
• Burundi:
[Link]
THE CONCEPT OF R2P
• The primary responsibility for the
The protection of populations lies with the
state. This is a recognition that
Responsibility to sovereignty includes not just rights,
but responsibilities;
Protect (R2P) is • When governments are unable or
unwilling to protect their
an international populations from genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity
security and and ethnic cleansing, the
international community has a
human rights responsibility to take action
• The international community’s
doctrine which responsibility is a continuum of
measures including prevention,
includes several reaction to violence, if necessary,
and rebuilding shattered societies.
important This response should be the
exercise of first peaceful, and then,
principles: if necessary, coercive, including
forceful, steps to protect civilians.
 Why is there a need for R2P?

At the end of the 20th Century, internal

conflicts replaced inter-state conflict
and civilians now make up the vast
majority of casualties.

The emergence in many conflicts of

non-state actors as primary executors
of large-scale violence demanded a
strengthened international legal
framework regarding state obligations
to protect civilian populations.

The genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda

and Bosnia, as well as crimes against
UN Photo # 77098 humanity in Kosovo, East Timor and
Darfur have demonstrated massive
failures by the international community
to prevent atrocities.
 The Origins of R2P

In his address to the General

Assembly in 1999 and 2000, UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan
challenged Member States to
resolve the conflict between the
principles of non-interference
regarding state-sovereignty and
the
responsibility to the international
MaximsNews
community to respond to massive
human rights violations and ethnic
cleansing.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
(ICISS) report

The government of Canada

responded by forming a panel of
international experts, the
International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty
(ICISS), which conducted a series of
consultations among governments, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs),
inter-governmental organizations,
universities and think tanks, and issued
its report, The Responsibility to Protect, [Link].c
in 2001. a
 UN Reform Process and R2P

The report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges

and Change (2004), and the Secretary-General’s report
entitled In Larger Freedom (2005), two of the key documents
that set the reform agenda both included recommendations
that governments endorse R2P.

The UN reform negotiations led to a 2005 September

meeting of heads of state and government at the UN and a
consensus summit declaration (known as the UN Summit
Outcome Document) which included a commitment to R2P.
 What did governments commit to

That states Their

have the willingness to
The
primary act in a timely
international
responsibility manner against
community,
to protect their these threats Their
through the
populations when commitment to
United Nations,
from genocide, individual helping states
also has the
war crimes, states building their
responsibility
ethnic “manifestly own capacities
to use peaceful
cleansing and fail” to protect to prevent
means to help
crimes against their own conflicts and
protect
humanity and populations, protect their
populations
that this including populations.
from these
responsibility collective
massive
entails the action through
crimes.
prevention of the Security
these crimes. Council.
 The Protection of Civilians agenda and R2P
On 28 April, 2006, the
Security Council made its
historic first official reference
to the responsibility to protect
in Resolution 1674 on the
Protection of Civilians in
Armed Conflict: it “reaffirms
the provisions of paragraphs
138 and 139 of the World
Summit Outcome Document
regarding the responsibility to
protect populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against
humanity.”
UN Photo # 186095C
Darfur
 Resolution 1706
• On 31 August 2006, the Security Council
passed Resolution 1706 calling for the rapid
deployment of UN peacekeepers in Sudan.
• The resolution makes explicit reference to the
responsibility to protect by
 The
Responsibility to
Protect
R E P O R T O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L
C O M M I S S I O N O N I N T E R V E N T I O N A N D S TAT E
SOVEREIGNTY

December 2001
United Nations
 The Commission
Initiated by Lloyd Axworthy

Gareth Evans, Co-Chair

Mohamed Sahnoun, Co-Chair
Gisèle Côté-Harper Michael Ignatieff
Klaus Naumann Fidel Ramos
Eduardo Stein Lee Hamilton
Vladimir Lukin Cyril Ramaphosa
Cornelio Sommaruga Ramesh Thakur
 The Report

Address the question-

When, if ever, is it appropriate for states to
take military action against another, for the
purpose of human protection of the resident
peoples?
The Report
• Is there a right
Main of intervention?
• How and when
Issue should it be
exercised?
• Under whose
in the authority?
• Is intervention
Report an assault on
sovereignty?
 Basic Principles
• Obligations inherent in the concept of
sovereignty.
– State sovereignty implies responsibility for
protecting own people.

• International responsibility when state is

unwilling or unable to halt or avert the serious
harm to its population.
 Foundations

• Obligations inherent in the concept of

sovereignty.

• The responsibility of the UN Security

Council.
 Elements
The responsibility to prevent
• address root causes.

The responsibility to react

• respond with appropriate measures.

The responsibility to rebuild

• full assistance with recovery,
reconstruction and reconciliation.
 Priorities

Prevention is the single most important

dimension.

Less intrusive and coercive measures always

considered before more coercive and
intrusive ones are applied.
Principles for Military Intervention

Just cause threshold

Precautionary principles

Right authority

Operational principles
 Just Cause Threshold
To warrant military intervention there must be
serious and irreparable harm:

• Large scale loss of life.

• Large scale ethnic cleansing.
 Precautionary Principles
• Right intention:
– primary purpose must be to halt or avert human
suffering.
– multilateral operations, clearly supported by the
victims concerned.

• Last resort:
– every non-military option explored.
– reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures
would not have succeeded.
 Precautionary Principles
• Proportional means:
– scale, duration and intensity of should be the
minimum necessary.

• Reasonable prospects:
– reasonable chance of success.
– consequences of action not worse than the
consequences of inaction.
 Right Authority
• Security Council most appropriate body.
• Authorization always sought prior to
intervention.
• Security Council should deal promptly with
requests.
• The Permanent Five members should agree
not to apply their veto power.
 Right Authority
• If a proposal is rejected or not dealt with in a
reasonable time, alternative options are:
– General Assembly consideration under the
“Uniting for Peace” procedure.
– action by regional or sub-regional organizations.
 Operational Principles
• Clear objectives at all times.

• Common military approach among involved

partners:
– unity of command and clear communications.

• Acceptance of limitations, incrementalism and

gradualism:
– objective human protection, not state defeat.
 Operational Principles
• Proportional rules of engagement that adhere
to international humanitarian law.

• Force protection not the principal objective.

• Maximum coordination with humanitarian

organizations.
Specific Issues
 The Right to Intervene?

• Traditional term- has inherent problems.

• Focuses on the claims, rights and
prerogatives of the intervening states.
• Does not account for preventive effort or
follow-up assistance.
• Intrinsically more confrontational.
 Objectives of a New Approach

1. Clearer rules, procedures and criteria for

determining whether, when and how to
intervene.

2. Legitimate military intervention when

necessary and after all other approaches
have failed.
 Objectives of a New Approach
3. Effective military intervention carried out
only for the purposes proposed, that
minimizes the human costs.

4. Eliminate the causes of conflict while

enhancing the prospects for durable and
sustainable peace.
 Human Security
• Security of people:
– physical safety.
– economic and social well being.
– dignity and worth as human beings.
– human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• The Universal Declaration of human Rights
(1948) embodies the moral code, political
consensus and legal synthesis of human rights.
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT:
ISSUE S OF SOVEREIGNTY
 Responsibility to Protect
• Responsibility for protecting the lives of
citizens lies with:

1. The sovereign state.

2. Domestic authorities acting in partnership
with external actors.
3. International organizations.
 Sovereignty
• Sovereignty does not grant unlimited power to
a state regarding its own people.

• Implies a dual responsibility:

– externally, respecting other states.
– internally, respecting dignity and rights of own
population.
 Meaning of Intervention
• “Intervention” potentially covers a large
number of activities.
– controversial term.

• This report- “action taken against a state,

without its consent, for claimed humanitarian
or protective purposes.”
 UN Intervention
• Legitimate because it is authorized by a
representative international body.

• Unilateral intervention illegitimate because of

self-interests.

• States must renounce unilateral use of force

for national purposes.
 United Nations
UN General Assembly
 Security Council (SC) Issues

Authority and credibility questions:

• Legal capacity to authorize military

intervention.
• Political will.
• Generally uneven performance.
• Unrepresentative membership.
• Permanent Five veto power.
 United Nations
UN Security Council
 SC Past Performance
• Often fallen short of responsibilities.
• Due to factors such as:
– sheer lack of interest.
– concern about political impacts.
– disagreements between permanent 5 members.
– reluctance to bear the financial and personnel
burdens of international action.
 SC - Report Conclusions

• Security Council most appropriate body for

decisions about:
– overriding state sovereignty.
– mobilizing military resources.

• Goal - to make the Security Council work

better than it has.
 SC - Proposed Improvements
• A “code of conduct” for the use of the veto.
– a permanent member would not obstruct passing
an otherwise majority resolution.

• Clear, responsible and consistent leadership.

– never abdicating responsibility.
– valuing human life above politics.
 “If the collective
conscience of
humanity…cannot
2001
World Health Organization,

find in the United

Nations its greatest
tribune, there is a
grave danger that it
will look elsewhere
for peace and for
justice.”
Kofi Annan
RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT
 Responsibility to Prevent

• First with the sovereign state.

• Failed prevention can have international

consequences.
 Responsibility to Prevent

• Strong support from the international

community is often needed:
– development assistance.
– support for local initiatives to advance good
governance, human rights and/or rule of law.
– mediation efforts.
RESPONSIBILITY TO REACT
 Responsibility to React
• Intervention from a broader community of
states:
– in situations of compelling human need.
– if prevention has failed.
• Coercive measures include political, economic
or judicial measures and, only in extreme
cases, military action.
Yes!, 1999

Nigerian UN Peacekeeping soldier

 Measures Short of Military Action

• Sanctions
– do not directly interfere with the capacity of a
domestic authority to operate.
– often indiscriminate - need to avoid doing more
harm than good.
– in Iraq sanctions are resulting in massive harm to
the civilian population.
 Types of Sanctions
• Military
– arms embargoes.
– ending military cooperation and training
programs.
• Economic
– financial sanctions targeting assets.
– restrictions on income generating activities.
– aviation bans.
 Types of Sanctions

• Political and Diplomatic

– restrictions on diplomatic representation.
– restrictions on travel.
– expulsion from international or regional bodies.
 Military Action
• Should only occur in extreme situations.
– what constitutes ‘extreme’ situations?
• The starting point should be the principle of
non-intervention.
– equivalent to the Hippocratic principle - ‘do no
harm’.
• Need to satisfy the threshold conditions and
precautionary principles.
 Responsibility to Rebuild
• In the past:
– responsibility to rebuild not recognized.
– exit of the interveners poorly managed.
– commitment to reconstruction inadequate.
– underlying problems that produced the original
intervention action not addressed.
RESPONSIBILITY TO REBUILD
 The Responsibility to Rebuild
• Genuine commitment to reconstitute public
safety and order needed if military
intervention is taken.

• International and local partnerships -with

progressive transferring of authority and
responsibility to local authorities.
 Responsibility to Rebuild
• True reconciliation is best generated by
ground level reconstruction efforts.
• Requires more than purely diplomatic and
military action:
– creation or strengthening of national institutions.
– monitoring elections.
– promoting human rights.
– providing for reintegration and rehabilitation and
development.
 Responsibility to Rebuild
• Critical priorities to avoid resurgence of the conflict:
– reconciliation and respect for human rights of all
populations.
– political inclusiveness and national unity.
– repatriation and resettlement of refugees and
displaced persons.
– reintegration of ex-combatants into productive
society.
– domestic and international resources for
reconstruction and economic recovery.
 Responsibility to Rebuild

Without an exit strategy for the intervening

troops there are, at best, unsettling implications
for the country and a possibility of discrediting
even the positive aspects of the intervention
itself.