Implementation of the “Responsibility to Protect” Doctrine in Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars

Suriye ve Libya İç Savaşlarında
 “Koruma Yükümlülüğü” Doktrininin Uygulanması

Zehra Funda SAVAŞ

The objective of this paper is to analyze the implementation of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in Libyan and Syrian civil wars and test to what extent this international norm is binding for the practices of states. In this context, firstly features of the Responsibility to Protect as an international norm will be explained. This norm aims to protect “human security” in the changing international arena and it assumes that when the state is unable or reluctant to protect its people, the responsibility belongs to the international community. Regarding Libyan civil war in 2011, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 addressed to Responsibility to Protect doctrine and authorized member states to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks of the Qaddafi’s government. However, same United Nations Security Council could not take any concrete step to intervene into Syria in where hundreds of thousands of people have been massacred since 2011. In this sense, this paper demonstrates that Responsibility to Protect doctrine cannot be implemented automatically when United Nations Security Council members do not give their consent which means that international norms do not have independent agency apart from states that constitute them.

Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, United Nations Security Council, Libyan Civil War, Syrian Civil War.

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Suriye ve Libya iç savaşlarında Koruma Yükümlülüğü doktrininin uygulanmasını ve bu uluslararası normun devletlerin eylemleri açısından ne kadar bağlayıcılığı olduğunu analiz etmektir. Bu bağlamda öncelikle bir uluslararası norm olarak Koruma Yükümlülüğü’nün özellikleri açıklanacaktır. Bu normun başlıca amacı değişen uluslararası ortamda “insan güvenliğini” korumaktır, buna göre devletler kendi halkını koruyamadıklarında veya buna isteksiz olduklarında, bu görev uluslararası topluma aittir. 2011 Libya iç savaşında, Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi 1973 sayılı kararı Koruma Yükümlülüğü’ne atıfta bulunmuş ve üye devletlere sivil halkı Kaddafi hükümetinden korumak amacıyla gerekli tüm önlemleri almak için yetki vermiştir. Ancak, aynı Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi, 2011 yılından beri yüzbinlerce insanın katledildiği Suriye’ye dair somut ve kararlı bir adım atamamıştır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma Koruma Yükümlülüğü doktrininin, Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi üyelerinin rızaları olmadan otomatik olarak uygulanamayacağını ve sonuç olarak uluslararası normların onları oluşturan devletlerden bağımsız bir varlıklarının olmadığını göstermektedir.

İnsani Müdahale, Koruma Yükümlülüğü, Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi, Libya İç Savaşı, Suriye İç Savaşı.

I. NEWLY EMERGING INTERNATIONAL NORM: RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was firstly introduced in the report of International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001.¹ This norm seeks to protect "human security" in the world of sovereign states and it assumes that when the state is unable or reluctant to protect its people, the responsibility belongs to the international community.² In this sense, the ICISS has an endeavor to balance between system of equally sovereign states and human rights derived from common humanity transcending state borders. It can be said that ICISS's efforts to protect human security regardless of state borders build on earlier developments in international humanitarian law based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).³ In parallel with this mentality of international humanitarian law, the Commission recognizes that protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms requires "the responsibility to protect" people even from their own country's persecution.⁴

Kosovo crisis and the Secretary General Kofi Annan's call for reconciling the disagreement between sovereignty and fundamental human rights accelerated the ICIS's decision to reconceptualize humanitarian intervention with its report in 2001.⁵ As a new way of practice humanitarian intervention, the principle of "Responsibility to Protect" was unanimously accepted by United Nations (UN) member states at the 2005 World Summit.⁶ The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reaffirmed 2005 World Summit Outcome shortly after this summit.⁷ However, it is significant to indicate that the R2P principle that was accepted by the 2005 World Summit has many different features from the doctrine of ICISS.⁸ In conceptual terms, the R2P attempts to reconcile two conflicting principles governing international relations which are sovereignty of equal states on the one hand and human security in solidarist international community on the other hand.⁹ This norm acknowledges that states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If states fail to fulfill their duty to protect their population; then international society under the umbrella of the UN will undertake this role through 'timely and decisive' action.¹⁰

With its new approach, the report represents the change from "sovereignty as control" to "sovereignty as responsibility".¹¹ "Sovereignty as control" refers to order within which states have been responsible for internal order and their domestic policies within area of their jurisdiction since the beginning of the Westphalian system of sovereign states. Even though this understanding of sovereignty has evolved as the democratic values and institutions have gradually developed, the ICISS report has been turning point for shifting to "sovereignty as control" to "sovereignty as responsibility". For principle of sovereignty as responsibility; "humanity is the raison detre of any legal system", and it acknowledges that Westphalia order has not fulfilled to protect basic human rights and global order should be arranged so as to increase security for individuals not for states.¹² In accordance with this understanding, new approach of R2P changes the terminology from "right to intervene" to "responsibility to protect" since the object of focus is those needing support instead of those undertaking intervention.¹³ In this regard, the main focus is security of human beings regardless of their country of origin and main duty for states should behave like guardians of human rights. Its ethical correspondence refers that humanitarian intervention is not only morally permissible- a right-, but it is also responsibility that should be undertaken by international community- a duty-.¹⁴