“Responsibility to protect”, was first passed by the UNSC. It was advised by the UNGA that the International security watchdog should protect the voice of unheard. The term implies that UNSC has right to intervene in any state where the basic rights of people are undermined. Is it challenging state’s territorial sovereignty? I will discuss it in following.
R2P and State’ sovereignty:
As long as the legal constraints of R2P are concerned, it has given right by the UNGA. That is, UNSC will intervene on extreme conditions. These conditions are racial discrimination, violations of basic human rights, any threat to international security etc. But all of this is criticized by many people. Criticism is regarding the state’s sovereignty.
Well, there is no doubt about the political manoeuvring by UNSC. In resent history, UNSC has been proved to be the tool in the hands of big players especially USA. May it be in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, many operations to protect human rights were politicized. So many analysts have opined that R2P is just another tool to achieve certain interests.
Yes UNSC’s role has been criticized for being political. But it does not mean that all is wrong. If a state, (A), is weak internally and is not providing even basic human rights of life. Then who has responsibility to protect those individuals if state(A) fails? Here comes the positive side of R2P doctrine. At least, at international level there is some voice and machinery regarding the protection of human rights.
Its highly appreciating that UN is concerned regarding basic human rights. R2P doctrine is criticized for being political because of UNSC. R2P is not itself a bad thing but wise implementation is necessary to achieve specific goals i.e. right of life and equal human class.