Failure to Protect: Study of the UN Security Council and The Responsibility to Protect in regard to the Syrian civil war: Failure to Protect: Study of the UN Security Council and The Responsibility to Protect in regard to the Syrian civil war
Translated title
Failure to Protect: Study of the UN Security Council and The Responsibility to Protect in regard to the Syrian civil war
Author
Christensen, Jenny Skov
Term
4. term
Publication year
2018
Submitted on
2018-02-15
Pages
57
Abstract
I 1990’erne oplevede verden flere krige inden for staters grænser (for eksempel i Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur og Somalia). Det øgede støtten til militære indgreb for at stoppe massakrer af humanitære grunde og udløste en global debat om, om og hvordan det internationale samfund bør handle. I 2001 foreslog en kommission idéen om Responsibility to Protect (R2P), og i 2005 tilsluttede alle FN’s medlemsstater sig, herunder de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. R2P fastslår, at stater og det internationale samfund deler et ansvar for at beskytte befolkninger mod grove krænkelser af menneskerettighederne. Den mest omstridte del er den såkaldte tredjesøjle, som åbner for militær indgriben som en sidste udvej. Borgerkrigen i Syrien, der begyndte i 2011, har påført civile ekstrem lidelse og indebærer alvorlige normbrud, herunder brugen af kemiske våben. Alligevel har Sikkerhedsrådet ikke godkendt militær indgriben. Denne afhandling undersøger, hvorfor der trods R2P ikke har været nogen Sikkerhedsrådsintervention i Syrien. Den anvender teorier fra international politik—realisme (der fremhæver staters magt og interesser) og liberalisme (der lægger vægt på samarbejde og internationale regler)—og gennemgår R2P, debatten om humanitær intervention, Sikkerhedsrådets rolle og konfliktens tidlige forløb. Analysen konkluderer, at nationale interesser har domineret beslutningerne i Sikkerhedsrådet, især Ruslands og Kinas; at Rusland nærer skepsis over for humanitære interventioner, især når de ledes af vestlige stater; og at ændringer i verdensordenen og stigende indflydelse fra lande som Kina og Rusland har uddybet splittelserne blandt de fem permanente medlemmer og forhindret fælles handling under R2P i Syrien.
In the 1990s, the world saw more wars within states (for example in Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur and Somalia). This strengthened support for military action to stop mass atrocities on humanitarian grounds and sparked a global debate about whether and how the international community should act. In 2001, a commission proposed the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and in 2005 all UN member states, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, endorsed it. R2P affirms that states and the international community share a duty to protect populations from gross human rights violations. Its most contested element is the so‑called third pillar, which allows for military intervention as a last resort. The Syrian civil war, which began in 2011, has inflicted extreme harm on civilians and involved serious norm violations, including the use of chemical weapons. Yet the Security Council has not authorized military intervention. This thesis investigates why there has been no Security Council intervention in Syria despite R2P. It uses international relations theories—realism (which emphasizes state power and interests) and liberalism (which highlights cooperation and international rules)—and reviews R2P, debates on humanitarian intervention, the Security Council’s role, and the conflict’s early development. The analysis concludes that national interests have dominated Security Council decision‑making, especially those of Russia and China; that Russia is skeptical of humanitarian interventions, particularly when led by Western states; and that shifts in the world order and the rising influence of states such as China and Russia have deepened divisions among the five permanent members, preventing collective action under R2P in Syria.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Documents