R2P

Responsibility to protect

·      Do not kill and love yout neighbor

·      Protect and take care

·      Commandments in nearly all religions, some osrt of love for the other

·      Responsibility to protect the neighbor when they are under threat

·      Not harm and should be able to protect

Concept of responsobility

No response from national communities

State sovereignity implies responsibility and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself

Where a population is suffering serious harm from iternal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the stape is not able to halt or avert it, the principle of non intervention yields tot he international responsibility to protect

• When the nation state cannot protect or harmin their own people there should be responsibility to protect for others

Shift of perspective

From sovereignity of the government of the nation state‘

• Towards protection of populations under direct threat

From perspective of those who might potentially intervene

• To the integrity of people in need

• Not my people stressing their protection and their needs

From the power of devcisison held by the individual nation state

• To the international community acting in solidarity

From focus on military action

• To a broad range of peace-building efforts

• Reabuild the country not only sending troups

• Enlarge the toolbox

R2P

·      A political concept for internatinoal law

·      And a theological and ethical one foundation provided by the world council of churches

Pillars

Eveystate has the responsibility to ptotect its population from the four mass atrocity crimes

  The wider international community has the responsibility to encourage assist individual states in meeting that responsibility

  If a state is manifestly failing to protect its population, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate action

The catagories this has been applied to

• Genocide

• War crimes

• Crimes agains humanity

• Ethnic cleansing

Three dimension

Not reduced to military intervention

Responsibility to prevent

Responsibility to react

• If something is happening

• People being killed

• National communities to intervene

Responsibility to rebuild

• After war

Military force is not always the answer to the layers

We can send troups to prevent

Or we can send them to rebuild it

Multiple forms to achieve

Intervation does not mean military interaction

Just cause tresholds principles

Right intention

• The intentions must acert human suffering

• Good opperation

Last resort

• Only justified when every non-military action has been tried but does not work

Proportional means

• The military action should be minimumnecessary to defend human lives

Reasonable prospect

• Reasonable chance of success which has justified the intervention

• Consequences should not be too bad

Ius ad bellum – three criteria to use force

• ·      Substantive

• ·      Prudential

• ·      Procedural

• ·      War can be legitamate only with two of them

• ·      All criteria should be fulfilled

Substantive criteria

4 types in jus ad bellum

Right intention

• Wage war for the common good not selfish reasons or hatred of the enemy

• In the past there was always doubt because there was a stron emphasos on no killing

• Rejecting it – how can killing in war be justified at all

  • Self defence

  • Is killing someone leads to happiness of many

  •   Killing requires no justification

War may only be waged for a just cause

• Self defence

• Defence of others

• Restoraation of peace

• Defence of legal rights

• Punishment of wrong doers

• War can appear to be just on both sides – three importan implications

  • Leaders should show due care in their decisions to use ofrce – seek advice from learned people

  • The just cause rule should be understoon in relative terms – both sides think their cause is just, so not think of the term absolute but recognixe its relativity

  • If doubdts about just cause can never be resolved make sure that the conduct fits with moral and legal rule

Proportionality of ends

• The harm likely to be caused by the war is less then the wrong that is leading to the war

Last resort

• Is it the only way the wrong can be righted

Prudential

• ·      Important checks on decisions to wage what would be justifiable wars

• ·      Reasonable prospect of success

• ·      War always has some evil in it

• ·      Endangers non combatants

• ·      Wrong to wage war unless planners can reasonablu expect to prevail

• ·      Looks at the likleihood of success and the cost of success

Procedural

• ·      Requirements of right authority and proper declaration

• ·      Limit who can declare war

• ·      Reducing odds of accidental war

Un charter forbits war with two exceptins

·      All states have right to self defense

·      Un has right to authorise the use of force to enforce its decision

Role of religion

International community need to aid people that are vulnerable that are suffering

fellowship of churches are not prepared to say that it is never okay to use force or power to help vulnerable people

they have responisbility to protect and prevent, whatever the cost and last resort risk non violence during engagement

the approaches might fail but need to be respected by christinas

the church does not believe in use of force to bring in new order of peace and safety, long term solutions should not be used by force

the force that is going to be used should be distinguished by military and war fighting methods

war is not a method to defiet a stat but to protect its people, the army is not there to win a conflict or dfiet a regime

if churches call for protection by international community they will be faced woth a process based on international law, the call might be reluctant because the church supposedly knows that the current situation of peril could be avoided, the chiurches need to recognie their own culpapility that put the people in the peril