The Failure of Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and Complicity of United Nations (Published)
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine,(shortened as R2P) is basically a response to the dominating influence of state sovereignty in the face of global security challenges and the compelling need for intervention for human protection purposes. The concept was introduced in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as another option to humanitarian intervention which was often associated with controversy surrounding the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention norms. As an emerging doctrine, R2P reconceptualized the principle of sovereignty and redefined it as a responsibility rather than a right. In pursuit of this new intervention for human protection purposes, the R2P doctrine provides that every state is duty bound to protect her citizens against internal or external attacks. However, if a State fails to fulfill this natural responsibility either willfully or due to incapacity, the international Community would be required to assume the responsibility to protect the nationals of that country. The report of the R2P doctrine met with global endorsement at the 60th anniversary of the UN during the world summit in 2005. The Report was further ratified for implementation in 2009 by the UN General Assembly. However, the R2P doctrine thereafter suffered a huge set back due to disinclination of the UN Security Council to bring the doctrine to practical reality. This weakness manifested in the deliberate reluctance and indeed veiled refusal by the UN Security Council to exercise the authority entrusted to it by the UN Charter which invariably betrayed a decline in the authority and stature of the UN. As a result, the R2P model of intervention was prematurely consigned to the dust bin of history. It is therefore the contention of this paper that the United Nations through the instrumentality of the Security Council is culpable for denying the world the benefits of the R2P doctrine as a viable alternative to the much maligned humanitarian intervention. As a result of the failure by the UN to implement the R2P in conflict areas witnessing atrocity crimes, the world is currently facing a dilemma and stalemate in intervention for human protection purposes.
Keywords: Sovereignty., United Nations, humanitarian intervention and atrocity crimes., responsibility to protect
The Failure of Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and Complicity of United Nations (Published)
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine,(shortened as R2P) is basically a response to the dominating influence of state sovereignty in the face of global security challenges and the compelling need for intervention for human protection purposes. The concept was introduced in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as another option to humanitarian intervention which was often associated with controversy surrounding the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention norms. As an emerging doctrine, R2P reconceptualized the principle of sovereignty and redefined it as a responsibility rather than a right. In pursuit of this new intervention for human protection purposes, the R2P doctrine provides that every state is duty bound to protect her citizens against internal or external attacks. However, if a State fails to fulfill this natural responsibility either willfully or due to incapacity, the international Community would be required to assume the responsibility to protect the nationals of that country. The report of the R2P doctrine met with global endorsement at the 60th anniversary of the UN during the world summit in 2005. The Report was further ratified for implementation in 2009 by the UN General Assembly. However, the R2P doctrine thereafter suffered a huge set back due to disinclination of the UN Security Council to bring the doctrine to practical reality. This weakness manifested in the deliberate reluctance and indeed veiled refusal by the UN Security Council to exercise the authority entrusted to it by the UN Charter which invariably betrayed a decline in the authority and stature of the UN. As a result, the R2P model of intervention was prematurely consigned to the dust bin of history. It is therefore the contention of this paper that the United Nations through the instrumentality of the Security Council is culpable for denying the world the benefits of the R2P doctrine as a viable alternative to the much maligned humanitarian intervention. As a result of the failure by the UN to implement the R2P in conflict areas witnessing atrocity crimes, the world is currently facing a dilemma and stalemate in intervention for human protection purposes.
Keywords: Sovereignty., United Nations, humanitarian intervention and atrocity crimes., responsibility to protect
Reflections on International Sanctions as Conflict Management Tools within the Collective Security System (Published)
Within international relations settings, the debate regarding the use and effectiveness of international sanctions as conflict management tools transcends an academic debate. In this paper, we discussed the application of sanctions and its variations that have contributed to conflict resolution in post-World War II era. We argued that the United Nations (a progeny of the collective security system after the League of Nations) has applied sanctions to manage a chunk of protracted conflicts, although in some cases such attempts have rather exacerbated conflicts. And to that extent, the role of international sanctions in this whole collective engagement business is never a write-off. We suggested that, sanctions that are a form of punishment are usually applied in response to aggressive actions, which aim at compelling wrong-doers to comply with laid down rules and norms. This work attempts an evaluation on the potency of this rather controversial technique that has been prescribed for under Articles 39, 41 and 42 of United Nations Charter. ; as a method that can be implored by member-states to enforce international law rules, of course with the expressed approval of the Security Council.
Keywords: Collective Security System, International Sanctions, United Nations, conflict management
The United Nations/African Union Intervention in the Darfur Conflict (2007-2010): Achievements, Challenges and Lessons for the Future (Published)
The paper examined the activities of the African Union (AU) and the United Nations aimed at resolving conflict and maintaining peace and security especially in Darfur, the secondary method of data collection and analysis was adopted. The study made use of conflict theory as the framework of analysis. The findings of the research revealed: that the conflict in Darfur was caused by the colonial heritage, ethnic rivalry, religious intolerance and ecological challenges; that AU and UN have contributed significantly in the peace process in Darfur in the areas of protection of lives and properties, provision of humanitarian assistance, provision of enabling environment for negotiation, among others. Nonetheless, these were not without challenges ranging from logistics, ecological, corruption. The following recommendations were arrived at: proper training for the AU / UN officials on peace keeping; cooperation of all the parties, especially the Sudanese government and AU /UN member states towards conflict resolution; and demonstration of political will by the international community.
Keywords: Achievements, African Union, Challenges, Darfur Conflict, Intervention, Lessons for the Future, United Nations
UNITED NATIONS-ECOWAS INTERVENTION IN MALI- GUINEA BISSAU: GEO-ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (Review Completed - Accepted)
Intervention in terms of international law, is the term for the use of force by one country or sovereign state in the internal or external affairs of another. In most cases, intervention is considered to be an unlawful. Oppenheim (1992) defines intervention as a forcible or dictorial interference by a State in the affairs of another State calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other State. The military intervention by ECOWAS has not been totally successful in quelling conflicts, crisis of regime change and political succession and military intervention into politics in the West African sub-region and the Africa generally. Intervention can be done by various means, e.g. military, subversive, economic, or diplomatic. The latest of these conflicts in the sub-region which ECOWAS has intervened are Mali and Guinea Bissau in 2012. The objective has been to restore democracy by forcing the military back to the barracks or restricting it to the constitutional role of protecting the territorial integrity from internal insurrection and external aggression. But the root causes of military intervention into politics and crisis of regime change or political succession are yet to be adequately addressed by the ECOWAS, for example, issues of legitimacy crisis, poor governance, bad leadership, political leadership failure, political corruption, electoral crisis and political violence have been largely left unattended or ignored. The political conditions in most of the countries in the sub-region and indeed Africa as a whole are not democracy friendly or unsuitable for democratization and flourishing of democracy or demilitarization (Aning and Bah, 2010; Sperling, 2011). Most scholars like Nowrot and Schabacker (1998) focus on the legality of ECOWAS intervention while the likes of Olonisakan (2010) concentrates on the effectiveness of the military intervention in quelling conflicts in the West African sub-region. Despite the fact that peacekeeping partnerships are yet to mature, the general consensus is that the world is headed towards greater integration between the UN and regional arrangements such as Ecowas. Such institutions play an important role, especially in a world with power imbalances, distrust and unrest. Cooperation among states towards peacekeeping mechanisms gives birth to opportunities for burden sharing, balancing power, pursuing self-interest and generally preventing the collapse of world order as it stands. In light of the changing security dynamics, peace operations have become both all the more complex and important. Bringing together regional arrangements allows flexibility for political manoeuvring and unity vis-à-vis mission mandate and implementation. Still in its infancy, peacekeeping alliances should be viewed as a means to an end rather than an end unto itself. It is impossible to obtain a foolproof hybrid operation. But with each step forward, finding common ground for joint preparation mechanisms becomes all the more easier.This paper titled “UN-ECOWAS intervention in Mali: Geo-Economic and Strategic Analysis” . The study is basically a qualitative research method relying mainly on secondary sources of data from internet source, official documents and country websites as the method of data collection. We made use of qualitative – descriptive analysis as our method of data analysis, that is, documentary studies of official document and other materials in analyzing the secondary data. The major purpose of embarking on this research is to examine the geo-economic and strategic implications of UN-ECOWAS intervention in Mali. Thus, we were able to make the following principal findings that, one, the delayed UN backed ECOWAS humanitarian intervention deepened the crisis in Mali. Two, that the poorly funded UN supported ECOWAS peacekeeping intervention worsened the terrorist attack in Mali. On the basis of this, we recommend, one, that UN and ECOWAS should evolve a rapid and quick deployment of humanitarian intervention forces in order to lesson crisis. Two, that UN and ECOWAS should adequately fund peacekeeping intervention forces in order to reduce terrorist attack.
Keywords: Ecowas, Geo-Economic and Strategic Analysis, Guinea Bissau, Intervention, Mali, United Nations