EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper No. 22

Author

Shin-wha Lee is a professor in the department of political science and international relations at Korea University. Professor Lee received her B.A. in English language and literature from Ewha Women’s University and received her Ph.D. in government and politics (international relations) from University of Maryland at College and served as Post-Doctoral fellowship at the Center for International Affairs of Harvard University. She served as a researcher of Ilmin International Relations Institute at Korea University, special advisor to the United Nations, ‘Rwandan Independent Inquiry’ appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, chair’s advisor of East Asian Vision Group, Korean Coordinator of Trilateral Commission, visiting professor of Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies at Singapore Nanyang University, Korean representative of the Korea-China-Japan Future Leaders’ Forum, visiting scholar of East Asian Studies Program at Princeton University, full-time visiting professor of School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, and scholar-in-residence for political affairs of the Republic of Korea Permanent Mission to the United Nations. Now she is a member of editorial board of Journal of East Asian Studies, research director of Ilmin International Relations Institute at Korea University, member of Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, member of Trilateral Commission, member and executive committee of board of directors of Academic Council for the United Nations System, and division chief of Asiatic Research Center at Korea University Humanity Korea (HK) Project. Her recent English publications include South Korean Strategic Thought toward Asia (2008), Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks for the Promotion of Human Security in East-Asia (2004), and Environment Matters: Conflicts, Refugees & International Relations (2001).

I. Introduction

The end of the twentieth century witnessed a change in the nature of armed conflict. Large interstate wars were replaced by violent intrastate conflicts, or “new wars” (Kaldor 1999; 2007), where the vast majority of casualties have been civilians. Overwhelmed by the proliferation of internal conflicts and the resulting humanitarian crises over the past two decades, the international community has increasingly recognized the importance of international mediation or intervention for crisis prevention and response. UN peacekeeping and humanitarian missions have been the primary tool for dealing with these problems, with human rights and international responsibility towards civilians trumping potential violations of state sovereignty.

However, international intervention, particularly ones that involve military action, has increased concerns among some states worried about potential infringements on state sovereignty. Since the issue of human rights is commonly regarded as part of the domestic legal affairs of state, external intervention on the grounds of human rights violations is viewed as unjustifiable violation of sovereignty (Lee 2004).

Consequently, the international community remains undecided whether human rights and humanitarian issues should be seen as problems of security. In contrast, issues such as environmental and economic deterioration, and the spread of epidemiological diseases have been defined as security relatively easily. Regardless, it seems to be an irreversible trend within the United Nations (UN) and among other international actors to seek and justify new norms and rules of protection after witnessing obvious failures to prevent mass atrocities and the genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. In order to address the issues of state sovereignty and individual human rights simultaneously, a change in the normative framework is much needed. The notion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) was developed with this imperative to seek a new international norm and policy guideline on when and how the international community should intervene for the sake of human protection. After the NATO-led military action in Kosovo in 1999 for humanitarian ends brought about serious concerns about the legality and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention, the report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) on the R2P attracted global attention and fueled an international debate.

The R2P is a norm or set of principles that redefines sovereignty as a responsibility rather than as a privilege or a means of control. It prescribes that a state has the responsibility to protect its population and if a national government is neither able nor willing to fulfill the responsibility to protect its people, the international community has a secondary responsibility to protect them by force, if necessary, from the “four R2P crimes,” genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (ICISS 2001). The principles of R2P were unanimously adopted by the heads of state and government at the World Summit High-level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September 2005, and the UN General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/63/308) on the implementation of R2P was adopted in September 2009.

However, it is very difficult to turn the concept into policy, even if it is unanimously accepted. Originally, the ICISS report recommended that the range of R2P should include situations of state collapse and overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes (ICISS 2001), but this was later narrowed down to the four R2P crimes. This was to prohibit arbitrary use of the R2P concept to justify unbounded international intervention. Yet, it still generated much controversy during the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctioned North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military intervention in Libya in 2011, an intervention based on R2P. Moreover, this limited definition of R2P has led to debates on how it can effectively respond to cases such as North Korea, which face complex emergencies where a combination of natural and man-made disasters adds to the suffering of the people.

Just as in humanitarian intervention, the R2P faces several dilemmas: How serious should humanitarian emergencies be to warrant international intervention? How can the narrowly defined R2P crimes accommodate those suffering in complex humanitarian crises? When should the UNSC approve external military engagement as a justifiable act and when should it not? What generates more danger, forcibly intervening or remaining an onlooker to the humanitarian crisis within a state? What kinds of normative and legal grounds can the R2P provide for outside involvement? Why is the R2P doctrine more than mere humanitarian intervention, and can the R2P overcome the shortcomings of humanitarian intervention? Why did we need intervention in Libya while not in Syria where the situation has been more or less the same as in Libya in terms of the necessity of civilian protection? Is it feasible for the international community to opt for military intervention in North Korea based on the principles of the R2P if a crisis occurs as it did in Libya?

Along the line of these inquiries, this working paper first reviews international responses to complex emergencies, with particular emphasis on multidimensional UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. Second, the development of the concept and debates of the R2P will be discussed, which will be followed by the limitations and controversies related to the notions and practices of the R2P. Third, the possibility of the R2P applied to both internationally endorsed R2P crimes and “non-R2P” crimes will be examined with a number of case studies: Cambodia, Darfur, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Libya, and Syria as R2P-delineated crimes; and Myanmar, Somalia, and Zimbabwe as non-R2P cases. Through these case studies, we can evaluate the possibility and validity of expanding the scope of the R2P and find the practical implications for the case of North Korea. It seems unfortunately improbable that the UN member states will apply the R2P to North Korea, not only in its current situation, but even if the people of the country were to face a situation like that of Libya and Syria, because China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, will veto any military intervention against North Korea.

In brief, the initial assumption of this paper is that considering the difficulty in turning the R2P from words to deeds, it is practical to limit the R2P’s scope to four crimes. However, the narrowly described R2P also limits its potential to prevent, protect, or react to complex humanitarian emergencies, even for cases such as North Korea, where human rights violations and humanitarian challenges are among the most dreadful in the world. Therefore, it is ultimately beneficial to explore ways to expand the scope of the R2P in a way that does not undermine its applicability in the real world.  

II. International Intervention in Complex Emergencies

1. Rise of Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

The UN is dedicated to respecting the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of its member states, as well as safeguarding peace through international cooperation and collective security. The founders of the organization envisioned its vital role in preventing conflicts between states. It was believed that defending against external aggression would in turn guarantee the personal security of citizens within the respective states.

The majority of armed conflict today, however, stems from civil wars and communal conflicts within a single recognized state, rather than wars between states. Out of a total of 29 major armed conflicts over the past decade 2001-2010, only 2 were fought between states and the remaining 27 cases have been internal (SIPRI Yearbook 2011). These intrastate conflicts, which have become more prevalent since the end of the Cold War, have been based on ethnic, communal, and religious differences within a state, and often have become intractable when factors, like struggle over political power, territorial issues, and core economic resources have come into play.

The most serious crises that have emerged in the midst of intrastate conflict or state failure have often been defined along humanitarian lines. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), today’s armed conflicts are coupled with the “active and deliberate targeting of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, widespread human rights violations, the use of rape and other crimes of sexual violence as brutal weapons of war, particularly against women and children, and forced displacement.” The denial of civilian access to basic necessities, such as food, water and shelter, and limited international humanitarian access to crisis zones are also the main causes of widespread human afflictions, not to mention cases of ethnic cleansing or genocide which represent the worst forms of humanitarian crises in conflict areas (Lee 2004)...(Continued)