Slide 1: Good afternoon, everyone.
It’s my pleasure to have a chance to address a presentation
here. Today we will be look at humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. Actually
I will divide this chapter into two parts, first humanitarian intervention, second, the responsibility
to protect.
Slide 2: My presentation will be in 6 parts… If you have any question or couldn’t understand what
I said please raise your hand and let me know.
Slide 3: Ok, to get start, let’s move to the first part, sovereignty.
Slide 4: What is sovereignty? Read ppt word.
Slide 5: Actually, the more significant change of recent times is that sovereignty has been
reconceived as being instrumental. Read ppt.
Slide 6: Now I’d like to move to the second part.
Slide 7: There are 3 primarily emerging challenges within humanitarian interventions. It is true
that with the rising tide of anticolonial sentiment since the end of World War II, the non-
intervention norm became far more robust and applied to all states as one by one they achieved
independence, whether through peaceful means or armed liberation struggles. And 2nd, read ppt.
Slide 8: And there are 2 changes within humanitarian intervention. Read ppt. Human rights, on the
other hand, goes beyond the sovereignty and peace preservation.
Slide 9: The 3rd part.
Slide 10: Let’s quickly look at the historical background of HI. Although the intervention is
increasingly constrained and receive strong controversy, the many examples of intervention in
actual state practice throughout the twentieth century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm
of non-intervention.
Slide 11: Why HI became so controversial? Read ppt. Intervention may be self-serving from the
start, or begin as humanitarian but be transformed into self-aggrandizement.
Interventions by India into East Pakistan in 1971 and by Vietnam into Cambodia in 1978 removed
two regimes that were clearly guilty of having committed mass atrocities. But neither action was
incompatible with the national security interests of the two intervening powers. Often the breaches
provoked such fierce controversy and aroused so much nationalistic passion that their net effect
was to reinforce the norm more than to negate it.
Slide 12: Therefore, let’s move to the second part of the chapter. The birth of R2P.
The 1990s were a challenging decade with regard to conscience-shocking atrocities. Rwanda in
1994 caused lasting damage to UN ideals and credibility, and Kosovo in 1999 showed the damage
to UN credibility and the sharp polarization of international opinion. Under the impact of the two
contrasting experiences of Rwanda and Kosovo, Annan urged member states to come up with a
new consensus on the competing visions of national and popular sovereignty and the resulting
challenge of humanitarian intervention’. And then, the concept of R2P came out.
Slide 13: It was first proposed by ICISS’s report in 2001, which is entitled the responsibility to
protect. The ICISS struggled with the whole range of difficult and complex issues involved in the
debate. Whereby citizens are rights holders and states become duty bearers.
Slide 14: Then let’s compared r2p with HI.
Slide 15: The final outcome document came on 2005.
Slide 16: Looking at the fifth part, we will find out the r2p norm consolidation and controversies.
Slide 17: Let’s take a look at the timeline.
Slide 18: After witnessed cases of interventions, we have learned 4 lessons.
Slide 19:
Slide 20:
Slide 21: And we come to the last part of my presentation.
Agree Hinako’s opinion about: we should care more about victims not the government. I also
think that this principle emphasizes that sovereignty is not absolute and that the protection of
populations at risk should take precedence over non-interference in a state's internal affairs.
Legitimacy goes beyond legality and relates to the moral, ethical, and political justifiability of an
action. It often considers factors such as the severity of the humanitarian crisis, the motives of the
intervening parties, and the proportionality of the response.
I think intervention is justified in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or
ethnic cleansing, as these are threats to international peace and security.
It is essential to strike a balance between respecting state sovereignty and fulfilling the
responsibility to protect vulnerable populations.
I agree with moku’s opinion. Each situation may require a unique assessment to determine the
responsible actor. Define whether it is external or domestic problems.
The primary responsibility for protecting its own population is the affected state itself. States
are expected to prevent atrocities within their borders. When a state fails to do so, it can trigger
international action under R2P. If a state is unwilling or unable to protect its population from mass
atrocities, the international community, particularly the United Nations, bears a responsibility to
consider intervention.
Watanabe’s opinion: In some cases, regional organizations, such as the African Union or the
European Union, may have a responsibility to address crises within their regions, especially if they
are better equipped to understand local dynamics and gain consent from the affected state.
The issue of sovereignty is a significant obstacle. While there is international consensus that the
conflict impacts regional stability and global security, the application of R2P principles in this
context is contentious, as it involves the sovereignty of both Israel and a future Palestinian state.
