Personal security laws describes general conditions adopted after attempting various strategies and efforts to deter, delay, and provide adequate warning fail to prevent future criminal acts. The primary essence of such laws is to increase protections from possible physical violence or domestic attacks. In particular, the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) embodies the intrinsic commitment to mitigate various forms of intense violence and harassment (De Franco, Meyer, & Smith, 2015). The responsibility to protect seeks to bridge the gap between pre-existing obligations to offer comprehensive security under human rights laws and the possible risks of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Identify two arguments in support of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Undeniably, Countries are responsible for offering protection to the civilian populations against possible cases on incitement to war. The rule encourages states to exercise responsibilities in the use of diplomacy, humanitarian, and peaceful strategies (De Franco, Meyer, & Smith, 2015). Fundamentally, the R2P offer countries with the adequate capacity to protect their citizens through early warnings among other preventive and protective measures. The effective and efficient practical implementation of the Responsibility to Protect can enhance the general security and wellbeing of civilian populations.
The R2P stipulate that countries can apply force to prevent possible cases intense security situations that may result in genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of atrocities. Advocates of the law believe that it allows countries to deter the occurrences of terrible criminal activities (De Franco, Meyer, & Smith, 2015). The primary purpose of the global humanitarian law is to offer necessary protection to the civilian populations. Countries can invoke the rule by citing self-defense against armed attacks from other nations or domestic militias (Bellamy & Dunne, 2016). Additionally, the international community can invoke the R2P rule to intervene in a sovereign country and cite defense to civilian populations facing possible case of war crimes.
Identify two arguments against Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
In practice, the law on Responsibility to Protect is highly controversial. Most critics argue that R2P can promote new waves of militarism and possible propagation of war-related activities for allegedly wrong reasons. Some governments can abuse the R2P law as a license to kill innocent civilians especially during heightened political tensions (Bellamy & Dunne, 2016). The stipulated abuse may include irregular deployment of state soldiers to opposition strongholds that may result in civilian killings on huge scales. The law does not provide clear description of how countries can uphold rights and duties to prevent civilian casualties. In particular, the R2P rule stipulates that countries hold the right and duties to protect regardless of how they treat their citizens.
Another disadvantage of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is that it encourages absolute sovereignty to independent countries. While sovereignty is crucial, the rule can encourage impunity to domestic war criminals and encourage related atrocities (De Franco, Meyer, & Smith, 2015). In essence, the global community cannot justify wars based on humanitarian grounds. In reality, most military interventions can result in serious cases of war crimes and offers inadequate strategies to prevent possible cases of genocide or war crimes. In general, the sense of false security propagated through such military interventions promotes the idea of war for a good cause among other justifications (Bellamy & Dunne, 2016). Indeed, using violent force with the primary objective of preventing other violent actions requires great care.
Where do you weigh in on the debate and why?
In essence, the Responsibility to Protect is a necessary rule in fighting impunity and mass-acts of violence in sovereign countries. I believe that if properly used, the R2P law can help countries and the international community to ensure collective and timely responses to prevent war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, possible abuse by powerful governments implies that the international community should develop more deterrence measures.
References
Bellamy, A., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford University Press.
De Franco, C., Meyer, C. O., & Smith, K. E. (2015). ‘Living by Example?’The European Union and the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 994-1009.