In thinking about “sovereignty”, let us not forget the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine which says the Security Council of the United Nations has the duty to protect populations from grave crimes in international law, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
R2P Doctrine was first introduced in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and endorsed by states at the 2005 UN World Summit in New York.
In 1993, Francis M. Deng (a brilliant Sudanese I met when he was UN Undersecretary General for the Prevention of Genocide at a November 2007 Panel at the United Nations in New York City) et al. wrote of “sovereignty as responsibility” arguing that there exist limitations on sovereignty in international law, legal doctrine and state practice since the end of World War II.
What then are the criteria of the R2P doctrine and the principles of military intervention? What about Darfur? Burma? North Korea? Northern Uganda? vis-à-vis this emerging norm of R2P?
May I refer you to “Above Nations, Humanity: Universal Jurisdiction and International Criminal Justice”, a column I had written related to this R2P doctrine. For further interest, I am certain any Google search of "R2P" or "responsibility to protect" will cull up results.
Best,
Theary C. Seng
