Human Security and R2P Bjørn Møller Presentation to the 2014 IPRA Conference

Bjørn Møller Copenhagen Peace Research Inst. (COPRI) Danish Inst. for Internat. Studies (DIIS) Aalborg University, Copenhagen (AAU-DPH) Lecturer at Centre of African Studies (CAS) SG of IPRA Refugee Appeals Board CRIC (Center for the Resolution of International Conficts) 2013-

LabelReferent National Security The State Regime Societal security Nations Societal groups Human Security Individuals Individuals, Mankind Envi­ron­men­ tal Security S. from the environm. S. of the environm. Ecosystem, Species, Planet ”Security”

National Security Absence of threat to the State’s – Sovereignty (formal/empirical, external/internal) – Territorial integrity From – Enemy states (invasion, occupation, annexation) – Domestic enemies (secession) – International organisations () Form: Military/Other

Societal Security Security of human collective – National, Ethnic, Religous, Other Value at stake: Identity Threats: – Genocide – Discrimination – Forceful assimilation – Immigration

Human security Security of human individuals – Freedom from fear – Freedom from want Value at stake – Survival – Quality of life Threats – Human rights violations, crime, poverty

Human Rights Human Development Human Security

Human Development Inventors – Amartya Sen (India) – Mahbub ul Haq (Pakistan) Origins: UNDP HDI: Human Development Index Resemblance: (Absence of) Structural Violence

National and/or Human Security National Security Sovereignty Non-intervention Real national security v. Regime security Normal circumstances Human Security Human rights Human development ”Non-indifference” Exception

R2P: A western imposition? Genealogy of R2P Human development: – Sen (India) – ul-Haq (Pakistan) Sovereignty as Responsibility – Francis Deng (Sudan) – Boutros Gali (Egypt) – Kofi Annan

Francis Deng: Father of R2P 1.Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) 2.”Kampala Movement” 3.Sovereignty as Responsibility 4.Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on thePrevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities

Impetus to R2P Kosovo: Hum. Int. (1999) ICISS: International Comm. On Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) ”UN Track” Rwandan non-intervention (1994) OAU Report AU Constituent Act art. 4: “right of the AU to intervene into internal affairs of a member state in cases of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity” + “threats to legitimate order”

ICISS: R2P Responsibility to Prevent Protect Rebuild Whose Responsibility? 1.The State 2.Others Modalities Modified just war criteria: Just Cause Just Authority Proportionality Likelihood of success

R2P: The UN Track 1.lCISS Report (2001) 2.High-Level Panel: ” A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility” (2004) 3.SG Report: ”In Larger Freedom” (2005) 4.UN Summit Declaration (2005) Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (…) The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (GA/RS/60/1, articles ).

R2P: Taxonomy ”The Full Monty”: Humanitarian Intervention Enforce policy change Enforce regime change But also: Resp. to prevent Resp. to rebuild ”R2P Lite” Protection of civilians

Military v. civilian means: The Full Monty Means Ends MilitaryCivilian Policy changeAir strikesDiplomacy Regime changeLand forces???

Military v. civilian means: R2P Lite Means Ends MilitaryCivilian Shield from attackDirect protection Safe Havens No-fly Zones Convoying Sanctions Penal sanctions (ICC, special tribunals) Save LivesProvide emergency relief Accept refugees

Problems and Caveats Abuse – Hitler: Protect Sudeten Germans – Putin: Protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine Hidden agendas Selectivity: R2P inapplicable to – Nuclear and/or great powers – States with powerful allies