Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect

Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect The international community is acutely aware of the consequences of not having an accepted norm of intervention. While many accept that the UN Security Council’s powers to intervene in matters involving horrendous human rights violations are limited, few are willing to recommend an expansion of these powers, predominantly because such a proposition will almost certainly be countered by reference to the inviolability of state sovereignty. State sovereignty has played a starring role in the demise of many attempts to legitimise intervention, including the most recent and promising attempt to date: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that, instead of being irreconcilable, state sovereignty and the R2P are codependent: it is because of its responsibility to protect that a state possesses legitimate sovereignty. In so arguing, this article provides a novel platform from which debate surrounding the R2P can progress, unimpeded by arguments championing the inviolability of state sovereignty. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Griffith Law Review Taylor & Francis

Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect

Griffith Law Review , Volume 20 (1): 35 – Jan 1, 2011
35 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/sovereignty-and-the-responsibility-to-protect-DliL1ggr51

References (89)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright 2011 Taylor and Francis Group LLC
ISSN
1839-4205
eISSN
1038-3441
DOI
10.1080/10383441.2011.10854694
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The international community is acutely aware of the consequences of not having an accepted norm of intervention. While many accept that the UN Security Council’s powers to intervene in matters involving horrendous human rights violations are limited, few are willing to recommend an expansion of these powers, predominantly because such a proposition will almost certainly be countered by reference to the inviolability of state sovereignty. State sovereignty has played a starring role in the demise of many attempts to legitimise intervention, including the most recent and promising attempt to date: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that, instead of being irreconcilable, state sovereignty and the R2P are codependent: it is because of its responsibility to protect that a state possesses legitimate sovereignty. In so arguing, this article provides a novel platform from which debate surrounding the R2P can progress, unimpeded by arguments championing the inviolability of state sovereignty.

Journal

Griffith Law ReviewTaylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.