The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ of the United Nations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Responsibility of UN
Critique
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Charted in 1945 by 51 countries, the intent of the United Nations (UN) was to provide a forum for the nations of the world to congregate as a means to promote world peace. This number has grown to 191 today, in practically every country. No one can debate that the formation of the UN has provided relief and stabilization for millions of the world’s population over the past 60 years. However, many rightfully question the ability of this international organization to successfully manage present and future adverse scenarios. The power of the UN to stop imperialist actions was put in serious doubt when it could not stop the US from invading a sovereign country that did not initiate military conflict. The genocide in Darfur, Sudan was ignored until just recently and many thousands of children worldwide die from starvation every day. In addition, globalization has gone far beyond the scope of what could have been imagined in 1945.

Responsibility of UN

The ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ a basic tenant by which the UN operates, provides that a country cannot refuse assistance or support from other countries when it cannot or will not safeguard its citizens from genocide or other actions deemed as a crime against humanity. All nations’ sovereignty is respected as is their ability to conduct their affairs but this is a qualified condition, not one that is considered absolute.

“When peaceful means are exhausted and leaders of a UN member state is ‘manifestly failing to protect their populations,’ then other states have the responsibility to take collective action through the Security Council” (O’Neill, 2006). Critics of the responsibility to protect concept argue that it is simply another method by which the western world can justify its imperialistic predispositions. The concern is that the responsibility to protect will be invoked whenever a more powerful nation wishes to advance its agenda at the expense of the less powerful. Of course, this concern cannot be dismissed or denied in light of the Iraqi occupation which makes the argument for military intervention a tough sell to all, especially to the lesser developed countries. It is the nature of countries to consider their interests first and foremost and a responsibility to protect the document, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot change this fact or guarantee that the motives behind its invocation are morally sound in every situation.

Critique

The responsibility to protect is also criticized because it does not place enough emphasis on poverty and famine conditions and too much on violent situations. In addition, many that advocate humanitarian efforts question military involvement as the focus of this effort. “The challenge facing enlightened state leaders is to build an international consensus behind policies that address the underlying cause of human rights deprivations and that defend basic rights wherever and whenever they are threatened” (Linklater, 2000).

Another common criticism is that for the responsibility to protect to be properly implemented, it first requires a sufficient military force to be assembled beforehand (Macfarlane, 2004). It has been argued that military manpower would not be of concern if the U.S. was interested in protecting Darfur’s citizens. The deployment of troops to Darfur would not be without cost but if safeguarding civilians from genocide were high on the political priority list, the risks would be deemed justifiable. Presently the relatively small African Union military force is attempting to protect the citizens of Darfur from genocide. This is a goal that will not be realized without further military as well as political support (Reeves, 2005).

Another criticism regarding the situation in Darfur is that the responsibility to protect relies solely on the Security Council’s approval for the authorization of humanitarian interventions. If it is given that military capabilities were not an obstacle, intervention would still face unlikely passage by the Security Council. Any resolution can be vetoed by one member of the Security Council. China is a member and imports most of its oil from Sudan. A military conflict in this region is decidedly not in China’s best interest. The responsibility to protect report suggested modifying the veto system for an occasion of this type but the acceptance of this change depends on the outcome of the discussions regarding U.N. reforms (Reeves, 2005). The world discusses while Darfur suffers.

The debates regarding military intervention to protect people from genocide, torture, starvation, and displacement continue while governments continue to consider their interests with little regard to others. Human nature continues to be fallible and the nations of the world experience internal conflicts. The world continues the debate as countless people continue to suffer needlessly.

Conclusion

For the UN to achieve its desired goals and to successfully address the problems facing the world now and in the future, the member nations must commit to its success which includes adhering to its resolutions. If they do not, especially the US which is the most powerful military and economy of the world and permanent member of the Security Council, this world governing experiment will cease to be of any real consequence. If, however, if the UN’s authority is further empowered it can accomplish much in terms of world peace and humanitarian concerns. Some are fearful that strengthening the jurisdictional powers of the UN could lead to a world governing body in much the same way the EU has broadened its power over Europe. Those that do not share this concern point to the war in Iraq and the situation in Darfur as classic examples of why the UN must endure and its resolutions followed by all member countries or face severe penalties.

Progress has been made in the effort to combat world hunger and disease, internal and external conflicts, and environmental issues. The future of the UN depends on the commitment of the nations of the world to improve the world and its people.

References

Linklater, Andrew. “The Good International Citizen and the Crisis in Kosovo.” Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Imagination, Collective Action, and International Citizenship. Ramesh Thakur & Albrecht Schnabel (Eds.). Tokyo: UN University Press, (2000).

O’Neill, William G. “The Responsibility to Protect Darfur.” The Christian Science Monitor. (2006). Web.

Reeves, Eric. Darfur: Shame and Responsibility. Dissent, Fall (2005).

Click Here To Order Now!

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ of the United Nations

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)