Topic 2 | Reconsidering the

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Beginning in 2005, the UN adopted a standard doctrine for determining the legality

of international military intervention known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

R2P set forth standards for intervention based in the notion that while states are

ultimately sovereign bodies free from arbitrary intervention, they are responsible to

their citizens to provide basic protections against atrocities and genocide. If these

protections are not meant, the international community is said to be able to begin

the process of intervention. Applied in the recent Libyan Civil War and notably

non-applied in the ongoing conflict in Syria, R2P has come under international

scrutiny at a level not seen since its adoption a decade ago. This committee will

evaluate the doctrine in light of recent events, and will also consider alternative

applications such as the responsibility to protect in situations of natural disasters.

R2P is in question because of the legality terms that states are free from the

genocide and any malignant events to occur. The only reason it is put in question is

due to the controversial happenings in the conflicts from Syria. The main goal is to

put the program to good use and consider the responsibility of natural disasters.

International military intent is apparently well welcomed into nations that need the
help. The effect of the protection ideology creates a new potential for deterrence

thus creating war for reprehensible situations that brings conflict to nations and

questions security and promotes militarism. Advocates for the program indicate

that certain specialization reduced the chances of initiating World War III and up

until the 1990s war conflicts decreased but only slightly. In retrospect there are

states and governments that abuse the sovereign rights they have to create a license

to kill for any given reason and in other times the countries are incredibly weak to

protect against attacks from non- governmental standing. In relation to the

individual powers of states, they must recognize that each civilian has the natural

rights of protection, which is similar but very crucial to maintaining a strong and

healthy government. Those norms are in tune with how the United Nations would

wish to successfully spread to the masses. Humanity needs universal values, and

human rights have such values. The UN is the multilateral body that defines when

the use of military force is deemed legal. That is the case when a state acts in self-

defence or if there is a mandate from the Security Council. R2P means that in

addition, the UN can and must sanction ( have penalty) the use of military force to

protect people. Another way to implement it is through globalisation, along with

some other perks it allows for the best of productivity, growth and the ability to

fight against poverty within nations. On a darker note, it also has destructive

aspects, making weapons and drugs more easily available. It is becoming difficult
for some states to maintain and enforce a monopoly of coercive power. In many

respects, sovereignty as it was known before has been eroding. Nation states are

interdependent as we all know. Sovereignty cannot be absolute and it was never

that way even in practice. We must all find it important to understand that

sovereignty is instrumental or as a mean of achieving something or in this case the

protection with military power against enemies. Essentially, it is about human

security. Therefore, the abuse of sovereignty at the expense of human security must

not be tolerated. Domestic practice must conform to international standards. The

protection of people and prosecuting criminals are both related matters. Courts of

all countries can pass their judgements in cases of crimes against humanity, the UN

Charter was not designed to grant impunity to state criminals. The idea was always

to protect people and their rights.

What we need more than R2P is the Responsibility to Peace. Peace is the

greatest human right, upon which all others depend, and it is being challenged by a

new militarism movement. There is a belief that non-violence should rule the

international affairs. So far, the aspect of waging wars is deemed malignant,

especially to correct debts and establish power. Political leaders came to this

decision in 1907 and in which case the shock of World War II allowed for the

United Nations to be established. It was prime edicate to make due with what is
necessary to make the movement a success. As the delegate from Brazil, I can

agree that peace and government power is of use in times of crisis, but peace and

change in norms must be targeted first. we have moved from dictatorship to

democracy within the collective memory of most Brazilians. Rousseff, President of

Brazil, herself was imprisoned and tortured under the dictatorship. Brazilians can

therefore look at events such as the Arab spring, the reawakening of democracy in

Burma or events in Zimbabwe, Haiti and Mali with personalised affinity. Brazil has

abstained on the UN security council resolution authorising intervention in Libya,

and has abstained or voted against interventions on several other occasions.

However, in the United Nations allows for the resolutions to be widely heard.

Brazil just wishes to fall between the balance of sovereignty and preventing

atrocities. Leaders in Brazil are seeking to actively take part in the current global

rethink about the future of humanitarian intervention, and are increasingly willing

to deploy men in uniform to distant lands when the lives of civilians are at stake.

The change is significant because Brazil has historically championed national

sovereignty. The brazilian standing is to distance itself from its past and cooperate

with nations to achieve the same goals. Though Brazil was not always on the side

of using force, new politics change and leave open wedges for different attitudes

from other nations to empower peace.

 Although the amounts of help that Brazil would like to achieve and its

optimum goal to create peace and military defence recession has lead to second

thoughts and fading hopes for the acceptance of the operations in order to create

military power for good. we has seen the good and the bad in using government

power such as when we were still a dictatorship. The distinct sense of

exceptionalism to that pervaded Brazils approach to peace operations has faded

recently. As foreign policy religns with the West and the foundations of the global

liberal order, the drive to be different from the liberal peace will diminish,

though the perception of high effectiveness will remain. This perception of

difference ranges from essentialist claims about the Brazilian national character

(gregarious, peaceful, caring, tolerant, mediator) to the idea that cultural affinities

and economic similaritieswhich ease contact with the local population

heighten the effectiveness of the Brazilian soldier vis--vis other contingents.

Brazils colonial past and Southern provenance are considered to confer heightened

normative legitimacy on its participation in interventions. One specific Brazilian

advantage comes to the fore in development-heavy missions: many programs,

especially for agricultural development, infrastructure creation, and poverty

reduction, have been successfully tested at home. However, all of these advantages

only come to bear in specific contexts where similarities are significant, excluding

a number of current UN peace operations.