Search

Small states often conduct niche diplomacy. They focus their limited resources on advocacy in specific policy areas. For example, some promote human rights-based norms such as the responsibility to protect (R2P) and advance those norms' social recognition in United Nations discourse. However, given the R2P's politicized status, niche diplomacy in this realm has become increasingly difficult. This paper focuses on three small liberal states supporting R2P: Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Drawing on data from speeches and interviews, it analyses how these states engaged rhetorically with the R2P between 2017 and 2022. It identifies the divergent meanings that these states attach to R2P, and thus contributes to scholarship on norm support and contestation. Denmark has continually supported R2P initiatives, while Sweden and the Netherlands have prioritized accountability. From a critical constructivist perspective, these Western states' diplomacy reflects different 'meanings-in-use' for R2P, which contribute to either norm reproduction or norm adaptation. Explicit R2P diplomacy strengthens the norm in the long term, while supporting this agenda without reference to R2P may help achieve other desired policy outcomes in the short term. The latter approach, however, challenges parts of the R2P norm by contributing to its contested status and narrowing scope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing literature about the international community’s ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (r2p) vulnerable populations against mass atrocities, but more is needed to demonstrate the potential of principled negotiation strategies to improve the quality of r2p outcomes. Proponents of the r2p principle base their arguments on the primacy of protecting human life against mass atrocities. Opponents claim national state sovereignty and non-intervention norms must be upheld. This norm contestation often leads to a situation where r2p is either not implemented or military interventions are conducted as a last resort. From an ethical and human rights perspective, both extremes are suboptimal to prevent and reduce human suffering. This article argues that to avoid both extremes, more effective negotiation strategies are needed. An analytical framework is offered that can guide policymakers in their quest to protect human life with peaceful and humanitarian means focusing on prevention under already existing r2p mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Indonesia gained independence in 1945, security dynamics have been intricately linked with conflict. The emergence of separatist movements, such as the Free Papua Movement or Free Papua Organization (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM), has significantly disrupted Indonesia’s stability. This study aims to analyze the actions undertaken by OPM in their quest for independence, utilizing the perspective of the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Employing a qualitative descriptive research methodology, this research relies on secondary data from a literature review focused on the Papua region. The study reveals several key findings: The size and stability of a population are critical factors for the existence of a state. West Papua, with a population of 1.15 million, plays a pivotal role. The establishment of well-defined territories is crucial for distinguishing and representing nations. The proposed establishment of the Republic of West Papua has garnered support and recognition from nations like Vanuatu. Moreover, the Republic of West Papua actively engages in international organizations such as UNPO. Establishing and exercising effective government control over a nation’s territory is essential for asserting sovereignty and maintaining independence. This is exemplified by the Papua National Manifesto and the declaration of Papua’s independence in 1961. Building and maintaining relationships with other countries necessitate active participation in the global community. International recognition and support play pivotal roles in achieving long-term political goals. Challenges related to democracy, human rights, and environmental issues pose significant hurdles to Indonesia’s diplomatic relations. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle offers a framework for preventing mass atrocities and holding state actors accountable for crimes against humanity. International cooperation and dialogue are imperative in addressing these complex issues and safeguarding the well-being of affected populations.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, taking place since 24.02.2022, reflects the grow-ing antagonism between civilisations, becoming a test for Europe’s alliance with the United States (the Atlantic civilisation) and a test of the strength of the ties between Russia, China, and India (the Pacific civilisation). The “special military operation” carried out by the Russians inside Ukraine is fraught with manipulation. It is also an abuse of the R2P doctrine. The attempt to annihilate the Ukrainian people by destroying Ukrainian critical infrastructure linked to European infrastructure makes it clear that the involvement of NATO countries is inevitable. These events have become the background for the emergence of a new subjective right – the right to secure critical infrastructure allowing for continued operations of both states and societies. After the end of military operations, it will be necessary to determine the war reparations and to shape a new consciousness of the Ukrainian people. These considerations lead also to the question of when and how Russia’s aggression on Ukrainian territory will end. The authors of the article are unable to answer the first of these questions, for obvious reasons. The second question, however, may be answered based on a vision of the future new world order.

The study introduces a multidimensional solution to impose universal jurisdiction by utilizing firm concepts in international law to enhance the functionality of this principle in international legal practice. Initially, it explores the current ‎classification of the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law to ‎determine its latest status quo. It is prominent to introduce a comprehensive presentation of the ‎structure of universal jurisdiction and its relevant concepts in international ‎law by ‎reviewing international jurisprudence on this principle. Thus, the study reviews its evolution in international legal instruments and how ‎international courts utilise them. In addition, the research analyzes the UN ‎relevant resolutions on universal jurisdiction to draw a global portrait of its ‎legal status in international law.‎ Because of the cosmopolitan humanitarian ends of universal jurisdiction, the research suggests employing the concept of humanness to justify imposing it. In addition, these ends, and the purpose of enhancing international justice, drive the study to introduce the theory of the responsibility to protect (R2P) to justify the utilization of domestic legal rules extra-territorially. Nevertheless, this utilisation might trigger the question of national judiciaries’ independence. The research analyzes this problem to establish the required foundations to strike a balance between the independence of national judiciaries and imposing universal jurisdiction to secure justice. _________ El estudio presenta una solución multidimensional para imponer la jurisdicción universal mediante la utilización de conceptos firmes en el derecho internacional para mejorar la funcionalidad de este principio en la práctica jurídica internacional. Inicialmente, explora la clasificación actual del principio de jurisdicción universal en el derecho internacional para determinar su status quo más reciente. Es importante introducir una presentación integral de la estructura de la jurisdicción universal y sus conceptos relevantes en el derecho internacional mediante la revisión de la jurisprudencia internacional sobre este principio. Así, el estudio revisa su evolución en los instrumentos jurídicos internacionales y cómo los tribunales internacionales los utilizan. Además, la investigación analiza las resoluciones relevantes de la ONU sobre jurisdicción universal para dibujar un retrato global de su estatus legal en el derecho internacional.‎ Debido a los fines humanitarios cosmopolitas de la jurisdicción universal, la investigación sugiere emplear el concepto de humanidad para justificar su imposición. Además, estos fines, y el propósito de mejorar la justicia internacional, impulsan el estudio a introducir la teoría de la responsabilidad de proteger (R2P) para justificar la utilización de normas jurídicas internas extraterritorialmente. Sin embargo, esta utilización podría plantear la cuestión de la independencia de los poderes judiciales nacionales. La investigación analiza este problema para establecer las bases necesarias para lograr un equilibrio entre la independencia de los poderes judiciales nacionales y la imposición de la jurisdicción universal para garantizar la justicia. ___________ 本研究提出了一种多维解决方案，即利用国际法中的明确概念来实施普遍管辖权，以提高这一原则在国际法律实践中的功能性。首先，它探讨了国际法中普遍管辖权原则的现行分类，以确定其最新现状。通过回顾有关这一原则的国际判例，全面介绍普遍管辖权的结构及其在国际法中的相关概念，这一点非常重要。因此，本研究回顾了普遍管辖权在国际法律文书中的演变，以及国际法院如何利用它们。此外，本论文还分析了联合国关于普遍管辖权的有关决议，以描述其在国际法中的法律地位。由于普遍管辖权具有世界性的人道主义目的，本研究建议采用人性概念来证明实施普遍管辖权的合理性。此外，这些目的以及加强国际正义的理想促使本研究引入保护责任（R2P）理论，以证明在域外适用国内法律规则的正当性。然而，这种适用可能会引发国家司法机构独立性的问题。本文分析了这个问题，为在国家司法机构独立性和实施普遍管辖权之间取得平衡奠定了必要的基础，以保障正义。

This open-access bibliography provides an extensive compilation of research conducted on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and relevant themes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The North Korean authorities have the responsibility to protect (R2P) their people from starvation. Yet, reports of death from starvation in North Korea have been consistent since the widespread famine during the so‐called "Arduous March." According to Amartya Sen, in a society with massive starvation and food refugees, famine crises are not merely due to food availability decline (FAD). Instead, the dominant variable in such crises is the food entitlement decline (FED) of vulnerable social groups. Therefore, since the repeated failure of the North Korean government to fulfill its responsibility justifies and obliges the international community to act, the "food entitlement" of the North Korean people needs to be further explored from social, economic, and political perspectives to help clarify and validate such international responsibility. Focusing on Kim Jong‐un's leadership since 2012, this paper explores the substance and causes of FAD and FED in North Korea and monitors any changes. To seek effective commitments from the international community, including South Korea, the current research also analyzes the impact of the persistent violation of the people's right to food on the North Korean economic‐social system and political regime, and the ensuing influence on the human rights situation with reference to the cases of Vietnam, China, and Mongolia in terms of the dichotomic social differentiation, beginnings of the civil society, and political change in the late‐communist stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sovereignty, concerning state authority, endows the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the rights of citizens. This redefined and broadened scope of sovereignty is ascribed to the international norm of the R2P. The pioneering assertions of R2P were conceptualized by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in ‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty’ after NATO intervened in Kosovo (1999). During a humanitarian crisis, the more serious concern lies in the unchecked systematic violations of human rights rather than the question of the legitimacy and legality of intervention by the international community. In the 2005 World Summit, Sovereignty was redefined as an R2P by the state against atrocious violations of human rights. In case of failure of the host state, the international community could intervene through the Security Council. This paper will implicitly consider the normative contours of the R2P framework while assessing the current multifaceted humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The post-war humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is characterized by poverty and internal displacement. Additionally, human security concerns arise from the inter-group rivalry between the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) and the Taliban, accompanied by human rights violations against women and ethnic minorities under the Taliban regime. Aligning with the first pillar, the responsibility to protect Afghan citizens rests with the Taliban as the sovereign authority of the state. However, internalizing the principles of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can pave the way for prospective peace in Afghanistan.

Abstract The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is developed to stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Since 2005, the UN operationalized it in Libya, Yemen, Liberia, Syria, South Sudan, and Congo. However, to address India’s genocide in Kashmir, the framework is contested and politicized. So the paper test the parameters of R2P and its possible implementation. It asks (a) Why the UN has failed to operationalize R2P in Kashmir. (b) What are the underlying reasons and how realpolitik is undermining R2P implementation? It argues that India is involved in a systematic and sustained genocide of the Kashmiri population and illegal settlements of the Hindu community. Nevertheless, major powers’ geo-economics and geopolitical interests, a paradigm shift in the global order where India is placed at the heart of U.S. hedging strategy against China, and New Delhi's sustained role in regional and global politics prevent the international community from invoking R2P. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Critique of Law: Independent Legal Studies / Krytyka Prawa: Niezalezne Studia nad Prawem is the property of Akademia Leona Kozminskiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article unpacks the normative and structural challenges facing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in responding to and preventing atrocity crimes, focusing on Myanmar. It argues that ASEAN has been ineffective in dealing with the atrocities occurring in Myanmar, particularly after the 2021 coup, due to its adherence to its traditional norms and the "ASEAN Way". However, faced with the defiance of the junta in Myanmar, ASEAN leaders may be forced to move away from its non-interference principle, and should in fact consider difficult options such as suspension of Myanmar membership in the organisation. By adopting the principle of non-indifference and holding the Myanmar military accountable for its continuing atrocities against civilians, ASEAN could strengthen its credibility not just before the international community but, more importantly, among the people of Myanmar who are no longer willing to tolerate a return to military rule and impunity by security forces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Described as a force for peace since its establishment in 1967, ASEAN is now confronted with a slew of political and security issues that has severely challenged its modalities of addressing regional problems, including the internal conflicts of its member states. The continuing political crisis in Myanmar reflects the kinds of dilemmas faced by ASEAN in keeping to its sticky regional norms and practices while being a responsive and effective regional organisation. As ASEAN struggles to become "fit for purpose", the paper argues that a negotiated "ASEAN Way", founded on ideas of positive peace and human security, allows ASEAN to chart a renewed regional agenda for maintaining peace and security in Southeast Asia, while at the same time contributing to comprehensive efforts on managing regional conflicts and preventing atrocities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Southeast Asia is vulnerable to conflicts and has a long history and present dealings with various forms of human rights violations and atrocities. At the same time, the region lacks a strong human rights mechanism to ensure protection, redress, and accountability. This paper thus argues that parliamentarians should vitalise their roles and enhance synergies with existing ASEAN mechanisms and entities to strengthen the protection of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and the prevention of conflicts and mass atrocities in the region. This paper proposes the establishment of a network of parliamentarians to support atrocity prevention and promote the responsibility to protect (R2P) in Southeast Asia. The network will amplify various parliamentary roles to support atrocity prevention, including legislative action on atrocity prevention, sharing of best practices on the establishment of national mechanisms for atrocity prevention, and capacity building for parliamentarians in preventing mass atrocities from occurring in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction provides a backdrop to the contributions to the special issue of this journal. Specifically, it summarises the main arguments of authors as they addressed the main challenges and prospects for peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and atrocities prevention in Southeast Asia based on select case studies. Among the key themes that this special issue examines are: 1) ASEAN/Southeast Asia's norms and practices and the stickiness of the 'ASEAN Way' against pressures to effectively respond to transborder security threats; 2) the transfer and localisation of global norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P); 3) protection of civilians, human rights, and women, peace and security (WPS) and 4) regional architecture including the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, ASEAN Commission on Women and Children, ASEAN Institute of Peace and Reconciliation, and the ASEAN parliamentarians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of human security, whose origin could be traced back to the 1994 Human Development Report published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) represents an ambitious attempt to broaden the meaning of security and, perhaps most importantly, challenge the state-centric notion of national security. A resolution (A/RES/66/290) adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in September 2012 has, for the first time in UN history, formally recognized human security as an approach to 'assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people'. While the discussion of the human security concept continued within the UN, the advocacy of key UN member states for human security had been shifted to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Considering the fact that the potential role of the R2P to promote and operationalize human security has not been adequately explored, this article seeks to understand the positive potential role that R2P can play in operationalizing human security by exploring the relationship between the two. Acknowledging the efforts of Lloyd Axworthy, the former Canadian foreign minister, in situating 'human security in the R2P era', this article argues that R2P plays an important role in clarifying the scope and sharpening the focus of human security. This, therefore, can help strengthen the implementation of the human security concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The norms of humanitarian intervention have gained notoriety after historical events of mass atrocities against civilians. In this context, the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emerged in 2001. Its tipping point was given through Resolution No. 1973 in 2011 - issued by the UN Security Council - which resulted in the intervention in Libya. In response to the excesses and failures that occurred during the implementation of the resolution, Brazil, in an initiative as a normative entrepreneur, proposed Responsibility while Protecting (RwP). In this sense, the present work aims to identify how this RwP normative proposal fits into the vast panorama of the evolution of the norms of humanitarian intervention, that is, in the international political and normative environment. RwP is an example of a normative attempt immersed in the international scope of the rules on the use of force, emphasizing its propositional character. Hence, from an analysis of the content of the speeches involved in the context of its creation, and considering the great debate about new or modified standards by countries in the world periphery, it was found that RwP was a contestative normative initiative of the Global South, complementary to humanitarian action.

The article critically examines the effectiveness of the UN (peacekeeping) Operation Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI). In doing so, it elucidates the challenges associated with employing Chapter VI and Chapter VII (i.e., non-military coercion [Article 41] and forcible military action [Article 42]) to resolve the ethnic conflict amongst the disputed parties. In particular, it considers the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as ‘forcible military action’ and argues that the implication of the framework has resulted in effective peace enforcement (i.e., UNOCI completed its mandate in June 2017). The article also illuminates several underlying factors that led to the eruption of violent conflict in Côte d'Ivoire. The analysis has been presented through the hourglass model and conflict triangle to realize the engagement of R2P encompassing relevant stakeholders for sustained peace in a conflict-ridden country.

An unpleasant truth overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can solve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. This study empirically analyzes whether these arguments are supported by evidence on recent military interventions. In our analysis, the effect of military intervention on deterioration risk is not highly significant and considerable. At peak, danger—the risk of state collapse—is about 38%, whereas a country with no intervention has a risk of 19%. R2P doctrine, however, developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 with the avowed objectives of protecting humans from mass atrocities and other crimes, is theoretically defective, which will continue to be limited. To avoid arbitrary intervention, we should restructure the philosophy of the R2P to one with which any society of any age can agree and pursue a "minimalist-institutional approach." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista UNISCI is the property of Unidad de Investigaciones Sobre Seguridad y Cooperacion International (UNISCI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

China's attitude towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has evolved from resistance to acceptance with reservations. Having endorsed R2P, China reinterpreted the emerging norm and put forward four principles of implementing R2P, namely target state consent, regional consensus, non-coercive means or coercive means authorized by the UN Security Council, and no precedent-setting, which are followed when implementing R2P. This article explores China's change in attitude towards R2P and its different attitude on different R2P-related issues in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as the key target area of R2P, arguing that the combination of socialization mechanism and localization mechanism explains a series of China's behaviours including its change of attitude towards R2P, reinterpretation of R2P and stance on implementing R2P on specific issues. Through examining the Darfur issue, the Libyan crisis and the Syrian crisis, the article demonstrates how China supports or opposes the implementation of R2P under the combined influence of socialization and localization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States play the lead role in implementing the norms of the international system. They interpret norms through the lens of their sovereignty, refining and revising them until they are suitable to local interests and context. The complex nature of sovereignty and its diverse manifestations across states means that norms will be interpreted and implemented in different ways. This article argues that R2P and counter-terrorism are complex norm regimes which are susceptible to modification as they are interpreted through diverse conceptions of state sovereignty. Using the cases of China's response to the Uyghurs and Sri Lanka's response to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, this article shows that the malleable prescriptive norms of R2P and counter-terrorism can be reinterpreted by states in ways contingent on their sovereignty that deeply impact, and may even violate, the original intent of the norm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In this article, we use the notion of legitimacy to analyse shifts in global humanitarian interventions since the 1990s, culminating in the contested adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework under the United Nationsumbrella in 2005. We assess how this important shift was disputed with narratives of protection and interference, and argue that the engagement of nonhegemonic actors (specifically Brazil and Russia) with the scope of humanitarian protection has influenced the substantive legitimacy of this global governance issue over the past three decades by creating a norm-making process in which the fundamental features of humanitarianism have been tested and challenged.

Copyright of Conjuntura Austral is the property of Conjuntura Austral and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract This article aims to discuss the Principles of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that may be applied to the conflict in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Palestine. This normative legal research using a conceptual approach and a case approach indicates that the humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict needs to be the focus of the international community, and the R2P principle may be applied as an alternative solution. Although the R2P principle is not a legal formulation, R2P plays an important role. It is recognized as an emerging norm or an obligation with a legal significance. R2P has been agreed upon and accepted by most countries globally that are members of the United Nations through UN General Assembly Resolutions. R2P assigns responsibility to the international community to help parties protect populations from the crime of genocide. Ultimately, R2P is expected to encourage states to fulfill their legal responsibilities and obligations, help build capacity to protect populations, and provide assistance to states in emergencies. Â Abstrak Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mendiskusikan Prinsip Responsibility to Protect (R2P) yang mungkin diterapkan pada konflik di jalur Gaza antara Israel dan Palestine. Penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan konsep dan pendekatan kasus ini menunjukkan bahwa krisis kemanusian yang terjadi akibat konflik tersebut perlu menjadi fokus masyarakat internasional, dan prinsip R2P perlu untuk diterapkan sebagai salah satu alternatif solusi. Meskipun prinsip R2P bukanlah suatu rumusan hukum, R2P berperan penting dan diakui sebagai sebagai emerging norm, atau suatu obligation with legal significance. R2P telah disepakati dan diterima oleh mayoritas negara-negara di dunia yang menjadi anggota PBB melalui Resolusi Majelis Umum PBB. R2P memberikan tanggung jawab kepada komunitas internasional untuk membantu para pihak melindungi penduduk dari kejahatan genocide. Pada akhirnya, R2P diharapkan dapat mendorong negara untuk memenuhi tanggung jawab dan kewajiban hukum mereka, membantu membangun kapasitas untuk melindungi penduduk, dan memberikan bantuan kepada negara dalam keadaan darurat.

Canada has sought to ground its international legal sovereignty of the Northwest Passage by reference to Inuit "long usage." This article argues that such a successful claim would win for Canada not a Westphalian status of sovereign control but an Indigenous concept of sovereign responsibility. Such Indigenous sovereignty is not only "formal," requiring inclusion of Inuit in the form of government, but also "substantive," committing Canada to protection of the physical and cultural environment. This concept of domestic sovereignty as responsibility might also build on the emerging international norm of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) by extending its realm of protection as a condition of sovereignty. This concept of sovereignty as stewardship rather than control might help to head off a colonial scramble for territory in the Arctic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nuremberg judgement famously held that crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities – but who, then, is to prevent these crimes? In 2005, all UN Member States agreed that it was their responsibility to protect populations against atrocity crimes (short R2P). In 2010, the idea was born to appoint senior government officials to act as individual R2P Focal Points to help implement this historic pledge. This article critically examines the focal point idea and its practice, focusing on the experience of the Danish R2P Focal Point as well as the role of the Global Network of R2P Focal Point which today has members from 61 UN member states. The article highlights the significant potential of the R2P Focal Points but also a series of pre-conditions that need to be met if the appointment of a R2P Focal Point is not to remain a mere gesture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The escalation of violence by Myanmar's military forces against ethnic Rohingya populations in Rakhine State in 2017 served as a test case for Australia's commitment to R2P, and its capacity to protect populations from widespread and systematic atrocities in its own regional neighbourhood. Australia's response to the crisis in Myanmar was mixed; it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar that was instrumental in determining the extent and nature of violence committed by Myanmar's armed forces during the so-called 'clearance operations', and provided substantial humanitarian aid for affected Rohingya populations. Australia has, however, been criticised for not doing enough to pressure the government of Myanmar on the issue, for maintaining defence cooperation with Myanmar throughout the crisis, and for its reluctance to accept Rohingya refugees fleeing the violence. This article examines Australia's response to the Rohingya crisis in the areas of international, regional, and bilateral diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and defence cooperation. It asks why Australia did not take a more proactive role in confronting atrocities committed by the Myanmar government, and identifies lessons learnt and recommendations for strengthening Australia's atrocity prevention architecture that is consistent with Australia's pragmatic approach to regional assistance and its principled international advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following atrocities against the minority Muslim Rohingya population by the Myanmar military, several states have imposed sanctions and deployed international justice strategies against the Myanmar government. In contrast, Indonesia has used an alternative 'quiet diplomacy' approach, focused on aid delivery to affected communities and cooperation with Myanmar. The paper presents one of the first empirical examinations of Indonesia's role, and considers Indonesia's approach from a realpolitik perspective to show why Indonesia has avoided R2P measures. The paper identifies three factors that shaped Indonesia's approach: Islamic humanitarianism, Indonesia's own experience of managing civil–military relations during a contested democratic transition, and its continued commitment to core ASEAN principles. The paper also contributes to wider debates by identifying some of the limitations of R2P, especially in terms of how R2P can be sidelined by national and regional diplomatic priorities, in this case manifested in the quiet diplomacy approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world has failed the Rohingya. Yet, the essence of this failure is widely misunderstood. While the existing literature on the Rohingya crisis tends to blame specific agents for having failed to fulfil their obligations under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), this article directs our attention to the structural obstacles to mass atrocity prevention in Myanmar. Given the high risk of mass atrocities against the Rohingya and low feasibility of effective protection under any of the three pillars of R2P, it concludes that it was never plausible that R2P could work in this case. The idiom of R2P 'black holes' is introduced to denote situations where nothing that can realistically be done within the framework of R2P is likely to be sufficient to prevent mass atrocities or protect the victims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professor Alex J. Bellamy is Director Asia Pacific Centre for R2P, Professor of Peace & Conflict Studies, University of Queensland, Non-Resident Senior Advisor, International Peace Institute (New York). He is the author of Kosovo and International Society [Bellamy 2002], Security Communities and Their Neighbours: Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators? [Bellamy 2004], Understanding Peacekeeping [Bellamy, Williams, Griffin 2004], International Society and Its Critics [Bellamy 2005], Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq [Bellamy 2006], Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas [Bellamy 2008], Responsibility to Protect: the Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities [Bellamy 2009], Responsibility to Protect: A Defence [Bellamy 2014], Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions [Bellamy, Williams 2013] and Massacres and Morality [Bellamy 2012]. Alex J. Bellamy is one of the editorial board of Ethics & International Affairs, co-editor of The Global Responsibility to Protect Journal. In his interview, Prof. Bellamy talks about institutionalization of R2P concept that would be able to help in prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Prof. Bellamy identifies three categories of situations where it’s proving very difficult to protect civilians.

Copyright of Contexto Internacional is the property of Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Relacoes Internacionais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)