Comments on: On the Responsibility to Protect http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/on-the-responsibility-to-protect/ Commentary and analysis at the intersection of international law and politics Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:32:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: robg http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/on-the-responsibility-to-protect/comment-page-1/#comment-534 robg Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:57:02 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=909#comment-534 There is some contradiction in saying <blockquote>R2P offers states an argument which justifies violating a state’s sovereignty.</blockquote> Sovereignty is the power of a government to exclusively "run" a state's affairs, including - more than everything - the realisation of its citizens' most basic interests. The R2P of states, however, by definition is activated only where another state - willingly or not - severely fails on a large scale to ensure and respect its citizens' human rights. It is not convincing to invoke sovereignty where a state - intentionally or not - is failing severely to act as a sovereign. There is some contradiction in saying
R2P offers states an argument which justifies violating a state’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the power of a government to exclusively “run” a state’s affairs, including – more than everything – the realisation of its citizens’ most basic interests.
The R2P of states, however, by definition is activated only where another state – willingly or not – severely fails on a large scale to ensure and respect its citizens’ human rights.
It is not convincing to invoke sovereignty where a state – intentionally or not – is failing severely to act as a sovereign.

]]> By: Anthony Clark Arend http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/on-the-responsibility-to-protect/comment-page-1/#comment-533 Anthony Clark Arend Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:32:35 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=909#comment-533 Thanks for the comment. I think R2P does give states a rhetorical vehicle to appeal to the Security Council, even if no additional legal authority. Thanks for the comment. I think R2P does give states a rhetorical vehicle to appeal to the Security Council, even if no additional legal authority.

]]> By: Mark Leon Goldberg http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/on-the-responsibility-to-protect/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Mark Leon Goldberg Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:36:57 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=909#comment-532 Perhaps I should have been more artful with my language. My point is that R2P offers member states a novel legal argument which they can put before the Security Council to justify violating a state's sovereignty. Historically, the norm of non-interference was inviolable absent a Ch. VII resolution. It still is, but R2P gives interventionists a certain counter-argument should a member of the P5 cite "sovereignty" as a reason to uphold the general prohibition against intervention. Perhaps I should have been more artful with my language. My point is that R2P offers member states a novel legal argument which they can put before the Security Council to justify violating a state’s sovereignty. Historically, the norm of non-interference was inviolable absent a Ch. VII resolution. It still is, but R2P gives interventionists a certain counter-argument should a member of the P5 cite “sovereignty” as a reason to uphold the general prohibition against intervention.

]]>