Single Topic Area: Defining Legal
Standards for International
Intervention and Peacekeeping
Statement of the Problem
The responsibility to protect (or R2P) is one of the
most hotly contended issues in international affairs
.
8
At the center of this variance is the inconsistency
of the legal standards that determine the conditions
and circumstances of international intervention that
seek to resolve humanitarian crises. The imperative
for action, then, comes in formulating a set of clear
guidelines for intervention during instances of Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design
10
humanitarian violations. As such, the problem can
be characterized as consisting of three components:
(i) identifying if an event warrants intervention; (ii)
determining the appropriate actions that constitute
such interventions; and (iii) achieving the international
consensus essential to realizing this course of action
in practice. A central challenge in framing these legal
benchmarks is achieving the breadth and depth that
will make for general applicability in the full range
of possible eventualities. This deliberate and holistic
process of evaluation will be crucial for avoiding the
paralysis that prompted the unacceptable inaction of
the global community during instances such as the
Rwandan genocide or the conflict in Darfur.9
Mass atrocities and genocides are the humancreated
disasters most often invoked in relation to
the responsibility to protect. The visceral repugnance
prompted by such atrocities fuels public calls for
action; yet a similarly compelling force restrains
governments and international organizations: the
restraining power of national sovereignty. The
dichotomy between protecting human rights and
respecting national sovereignty is a debate that
must be taken into account in any examination
of the topic. Kofi Annan delivered a similar task
to the world community during the controversy
surrounding NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo:
he “challenged the world governments to develop
a way of reconciling the principles of sovereignty
and fundamental human rights in a way which could
protect individuals from arbitrary killing.”10
Central to the problem of conceiving the
responsibility to protect is therefore framing how
these two competing values – human rights and
sovereignty – should be weighed, and under what
circumstances – if any – one can be abrogated in favor
of the other. Significantly complicating the problem,
the definitions of these terms are not concretely
established but rather in a state of flux. Hence, an
important task for any resolving party is defining
these key concepts and resolving the nature of their
interaction. Defining the maintenance of human
rights as an integral component of sovereignty can
alter the nature of the debate and shift the focus
away from balancing the two competing principles
and toward determining when abuses have occurred.
Such a definition frames sovereignty as responsibility
and thus renders states legitimate only when they
sufficiently safeguard the basic human rights of
their people. A competing viewpoint holds that it is
inappropriate and paternalistic for other states to
discipline sovereign nations for perceived internal
infringements that purportedly violate a set of
foreign standards. Establishing a consensus on the
meaning and relative standing of these two terms –
sovereignty and human rights – is thus a critical task
for this legal committee.
Subsequent to this initial contention are several key
questions that must be resolved by the committee.
Importantly, there are two areas that require the
provision of a significant and comprehensive set of
standards. The first is in the area of standardizing what
constitutes an abuse; only by stipulating consistent
criteria for human rights abuses can the discussion
of potential solutions proceed in a meaningful way.
The challenge for this committee is thus to develop
a rubric for identifying not only the presence but also
the magnitude of human rights abuses. Moreover, the
committee must address the challenge of developing
the standards that dictate the type of intervention
that should be employed in response to different
humanitarian crises. This is a particularly difficult issue,
as a meaningful resolution must outline not only the
form of the intervention but also the key players that
will execute the mission. In particular, it is important
to clarify the scope and nature of the mandate under
which such interventionist actions can be taken.
Finally, this committee can offer prescriptions
Standards for International
Intervention and Peacekeeping
Statement of the Problem
The responsibility to protect (or R2P) is one of the
most hotly contended issues in international affairs
.
8
At the center of this variance is the inconsistency
of the legal standards that determine the conditions
and circumstances of international intervention that
seek to resolve humanitarian crises. The imperative
for action, then, comes in formulating a set of clear
guidelines for intervention during instances of Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design
10
humanitarian violations. As such, the problem can
be characterized as consisting of three components:
(i) identifying if an event warrants intervention; (ii)
determining the appropriate actions that constitute
such interventions; and (iii) achieving the international
consensus essential to realizing this course of action
in practice. A central challenge in framing these legal
benchmarks is achieving the breadth and depth that
will make for general applicability in the full range
of possible eventualities. This deliberate and holistic
process of evaluation will be crucial for avoiding the
paralysis that prompted the unacceptable inaction of
the global community during instances such as the
Rwandan genocide or the conflict in Darfur.9
Mass atrocities and genocides are the humancreated
disasters most often invoked in relation to
the responsibility to protect. The visceral repugnance
prompted by such atrocities fuels public calls for
action; yet a similarly compelling force restrains
governments and international organizations: the
restraining power of national sovereignty. The
dichotomy between protecting human rights and
respecting national sovereignty is a debate that
must be taken into account in any examination
of the topic. Kofi Annan delivered a similar task
to the world community during the controversy
surrounding NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo:
he “challenged the world governments to develop
a way of reconciling the principles of sovereignty
and fundamental human rights in a way which could
protect individuals from arbitrary killing.”10
Central to the problem of conceiving the
responsibility to protect is therefore framing how
these two competing values – human rights and
sovereignty – should be weighed, and under what
circumstances – if any – one can be abrogated in favor
of the other. Significantly complicating the problem,
the definitions of these terms are not concretely
established but rather in a state of flux. Hence, an
important task for any resolving party is defining
these key concepts and resolving the nature of their
interaction. Defining the maintenance of human
rights as an integral component of sovereignty can
alter the nature of the debate and shift the focus
away from balancing the two competing principles
and toward determining when abuses have occurred.
Such a definition frames sovereignty as responsibility
and thus renders states legitimate only when they
sufficiently safeguard the basic human rights of
their people. A competing viewpoint holds that it is
inappropriate and paternalistic for other states to
discipline sovereign nations for perceived internal
infringements that purportedly violate a set of
foreign standards. Establishing a consensus on the
meaning and relative standing of these two terms –
sovereignty and human rights – is thus a critical task
for this legal committee.
Subsequent to this initial contention are several key
questions that must be resolved by the committee.
Importantly, there are two areas that require the
provision of a significant and comprehensive set of
standards. The first is in the area of standardizing what
constitutes an abuse; only by stipulating consistent
criteria for human rights abuses can the discussion
of potential solutions proceed in a meaningful way.
The challenge for this committee is thus to develop
a rubric for identifying not only the presence but also
the magnitude of human rights abuses. Moreover, the
committee must address the challenge of developing
the standards that dictate the type of intervention
that should be employed in response to different
humanitarian crises. This is a particularly difficult issue,
as a meaningful resolution must outline not only the
form of the intervention but also the key players that
will execute the mission. In particular, it is important
to clarify the scope and nature of the mandate under
which such interventionist actions can be taken.
Finally, this committee can offer prescriptions
