جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « responsibility to protect » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

It is the responsibility to support the emerging doctrines, which is a place of debate and disagreement because it has changed the concept of non-intervention and humanitarian intervention. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to examine the question of what are the duties of governments in the face of humanitarian rights violations in the light of the responsibility to protect? The method of this article is descriptive and analytical and it has investigated the mentioned question in a library form. The findings indicate that according to the aforementioned doctrine, every government has a responsibility to the international community regarding the treatment of its citizens and others. The emergence of the mentioned doctrine is the result of trying to solve the challenge between sovereignty and the preservation. From this point of view, countries have a responsibility to protect their citizens and other countries against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Prevention, response and reconstruction are the most important their citizens and others. The responsibility to protect was developed in response to the failure of governments to protect their citizens against crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, which are collectively defined as crimes of mass cruelty and the failure of the international community to prevent such atrocities. In this regard, collective action must be taken in a decisive and timely manner through the Security Council in accordance with the charter.

Numerous deadly conflicts and human tragedies occur in the authority domain of national sovereignty. The doctrine of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) has primarily entrusted governments with the responsibility of preventing human crises by implementing some basic (structural) measures, which, if carried out, will essentially prevent crises from happening or prevent their recurrence through a series of long-term structural adjustments. Many human crises stem from undue discrimination, poverty, and social, political, and economic inequality. A question rises here: what are the paramount fundamental preventive measures for which the government is responsible? The research findings show that the most important preventive measures to be taken by governments for good governance include respecting human rights, promoting social and economic development, promoting a sense of solidarity among ethnic groups, preventing environmental destruction, and boosting power regarding public security. Preventing conflicts and human disasters is not a mere local or national issue. Success in prevention generally requires solid support from the international community.

The right to self-determination could be applied in situations aiming to prevent crimes against humanity that are subject to the responsibility to protect. Generally, governments that violate the right to self-determination of their people, including minority groups, are more prone to committing these heinous crimes. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect seeks to establish a responsible government toward its citizens; The protection aspect of the doctrine has been discussed in this research, which does not necessarily include intervention. Adhering to human rights standards and exercising the right to self-determination in the framework of the responsibility to protect is a foundation to prevent situations that can lead to atrocities and widespread violations of human rights. Thus, this can be considered as the link between the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect. Literature Review The right to self-determination of people has been an important subject of much legal research as a fundamental principle of international law. On the other hand, the responsibility to protect is also among the attractive topics of international law as a new doctrine. The two notions have been separately discussed by researchers such as Antonio Cassese, Jörg Fisch, Yasmine Nahlawi, and Stacey Henderson. It can be claimed that the subject of this article which is an updated version of the corresponding author’s master’s thesis, is an innovative topic in the international law literature and has not been explored before.

Firstly, a descriptive research method has been used for this research i.e., the characteristics and aspects of the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect have been discussed separately. Secondly, based on the legal research method, the governments’ experiences in different situations have been observed to reach the final research result regarding the commonalities of these two notions. 

From the international law’s point of view, the internal aspect of the right to self-determination is an erga omnes rule, and its external dimension has been accepted as a jus cogens rule.However, it should be noted that a separatist interpretation of the right to self-determination has no place in the current system of international law. International legal doctrines, governments’ stances, and international documents always emphasize on the importance and priority of the principle of territorial integrity. Further, international peace and security requires that separatist interpretations not be supported.

Today, respecting human rights and, most importantly, the right to self-determination is a global matter and the international community should contribute to its realization. The right to self-determination can be realized indirectly under the doctrine of responsibility to protect. In other words, the right to self-determination can be applied as a means of preventing the occurrence of crimes that are subject to the responsibility to protect doctrine, and in this regard, the international community can assist and take measures and put them on its agenda to ensure the exercise of this right.The responsibility to protect emphasizes the primary responsibility of governments and the international community to assist other countries in carrying out their sovereign duties and only refers to the element of intervention at the last stage. the international community should come to the understanding that non-interventionist measures and international aid to the governments have a fundamental role and importance in supporting people and strengthening them and are to the benefit of international peace and security. The application of the responsibility to protect in Libya and the remedial secession in Kosovo showed how ineffective and destructive under-developed legal theories can be in practice.On the other hand, the doctrine of responsibility to protect suffers from a lack of clear criteria for intervention which is a problem that the international community should take steps to resolve. In many cases, powerful countries, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, apply double standards towards human rights issues. So, in order to prevent similar tragedies and protect the citizens, the international community should set clear and thorough standards regarding human rights issues and make them binding. However, it should be noted that the concept of cultural diversity should be taken into account In the process of formulating standards because, in issues related to human rights, no fixed standard that could be applied to all.

Support responsibility includes responsibility, reaction and change. The perspective of support in Kenya and its reflection on the society is examined.Materials & The research method is descriptive and analytical.Ethical considerations: In this paper, the originality of the texts, honesty, and trustworthiness are observed. The Responsibility to Protect comprises the responsibility to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. What sets R2P apart from the previously prevailing idea of humanitarian intervention is, first, an emphasis on prevention, and second, a stated preference for a multilaterally coordinated response to crises. The third and perhaps newest feature of R2P is the idea that regional organizations have an important role to play in facilitating conflict resolution and the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. Kenya’s post-election violence. in 2007 was widely viewed as the first case of ‘R2P prevention’. Kenya was seen as R2P’s success story – multilaterally orchestrated action to prevent an escalation of conflict, with heavy reliance on regional actors. This paper questions to what extent this account holds true, and whether the Kenyan case really was a successful instance of ‘R2P prevention’. An analysis of the Kenyan case ultimately leads to the conclusion that the application of R2P was, in fact, unrelated to the success of the conflict mitigation efforts. The Kenyan context was one which was favorable to the success of the mediation, and it is unlikely R2P would have succeeded without these contingent factors.

The constitution should be introduced as the main source for determining the principles governing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. To identify and explain the dimensions, characteristics and requirements of these principles and also to determine their compliance with international standards, this study is done. The author has tried to answer the main question of this research in the form of descriptive-analytical research “How are the foreign policy requirements of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the Constitution and international standards, evaluated? In response to this question, while identifying the principles governing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and explaining the characteristics and requirements governing each of them, It is proved that, although principles such as "non-interference in the internal affairs of countries", "responsibility to protect the oppressed Muslims or even non-Muslims" and "achieving the unity of the Islamic world" may have suspicions of interference in their areas and in some cases contrary to the International standards; However, with a precise explanation based on the principles of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, these principles can't be considered inconsistent with each other or international standards and these principles have specific and defensible characteristics and requirements that have been developed based on the revolutionary and religious approach of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Each of the First Generation of Human Rights and Responsibility to Protect imposes obligations on member states of the International Community. Violation of these obligations will result in the realization of the International Responsibility of the state and the imposition of legal remedies. The practice of powerful states has sometimes been that regime change can be one of these remedies. This leads to the primacy of political interests over legal obligatios. The present article, using a descriptive-analytical method, explains the relationship between regime change and the obligations of each of the first generation of human rights and responsibility to protect and answers the question: What is the status of the regime change in the light of the obligations of the first generation of human rights and the responsibility to protect? The purpose of this study is to separate the justifications for regime change from the real human rights concerns. The article concludes that a regime change in the current and established state is neither possible in the light of the obligations of the International Human Rights Law, nor in the light of the legal institution of responsibility to protect; Therefore, human rights are not a pretext for regime change.

Following the adoption of the Responsibility of Protection (R2P) in the heads of States Summit in the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, the Security Council which was eager to expand its powers after September 11, 2001 in international sphere, tried to justify some of its actions by this doctrine .The R2P, can be used as effective tool for protecting nations from the oppression and international crimes to which SC may refer in some situations. Regarding the practie of SC, it seems that SC normally takes the interests of P5 into consideration, while in some cases e.g.Lybia, Ivory Coast and Darfur it actively applies R2P, in some other urgent cases e.g.Yemen, Syria and Bahrain simply ignores it.

On April 14, 2018, the United States, Britain and France launched missile attacks on specific targets in the Syrian Arab Republic, including the provinces of Damascus and Homs. According to coalition of three states, these attacks were followed by the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons and targeted solely against its chemical weapons facilities. What have in the days after the act been at the forefront of international law theorists and politicians, were the legality and legitimacy of the attack. Emmanuel Macron calls it legitimate and legal, Theresa May calls it legitimate and moral and Donald Trump considers it necessary, on time and human. At the state level, a few states condemned the action, some supported it, and the majority did not take a definite position. Lawyers also expressed different opinions: Some considered the attack as a clear violation of the three permanent members of the Security Council not only to Syria but also to the international law; some also justified the attack and argued for legitimacy. The present article is intended to analyze the attack in the context of public international law.

Environmental displacement might come in variety of forms (forced or voluntary; permanent or temporary; and internal or international). Not only is it impossible, but also irrelevant, to categorize displaced persons based on their motives, and separate environmental factors from economic incentives. So, the protection of environmentally displaced persons should be based on their needs and vulnerabilities, rather than their incentives and displacement driving factors. There exists currently no comprehensive internationally-binding instrument to deal with environmental displacement. Some, have suggested, for this purpose, the extension of 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Others have advocated drafting a new convention. We argue that a new convention will not succeed to collect the necessary will and support in the current political arena, where States, more often than not, try to limit their established obligations towards migrants and refugees. On the other hand, any effort to extend the 1951 Convention might endanger the whole refugee protection regime. We suggest that promotion of States obligations to respect and protect human rights in urgent situations, with due consideration of responsibility to protect (R2P) developments, could fill-in the protection gap as currently exists vis-a-vis the environmentally displaced populations.

The Doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" which has three stages including "Prevention", "Reaction" and "Reconstruction", is used when a government will not or cannot protect its citizens against four crimes: "War Crimes", "Crimes Against Humanity", "Genocide" and "Ethnic Cleansing". As it mentioned, the plan, consisting of three phases, has created hopes for addressing disadvantages of humanitarian interventions such as selectivity and interference in internal affairs of other countries. Yemen crisis has begun from January 2011 after a revolution and public demonstrations. Since then, Yemen has been engaged in civil war and conflicted with other countries. It led to that Abd Rabba Mansour – the president at the time - resigned two times and escaped from the country. Following this, in support of the resigned President, a regional coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched a military invasion against Yemen, which resulted in the deaths and injuries of civilians and the occurrence of health and nutrition disasters among the civilians, especially children; so that according to the reports of international organizations, the war crimes occurrence in this attack is seriously evident. So, in the first step, the tools of economic, military and political sanction in format of the Doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" can be used to support the citizens of Yemen, and in order to prevent the commission of crimes by the regional coalition. This paper, seeks to do a brief review of the Doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect", and meanwhile analyzes the current events in Yemen From the perspective of this Doctrine. It also studies the invasion of Yemen by regional coalition led by Saudi Arabia from the legal viewpoint and finally analyzes the possibility of implementation of the Doctrine against the crisis which is created by the regional coalition.

Terrorism is one of the most serious threats to peace, and ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) has been introduced as a global and serious threat to international peace and security, as determined by Security Council. The legitimacy of use of force against non-state actors such as The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Known as ISIL) which has seriously violated human rights and humanitarian rights is evolving and not yet well established. In fact, the position of ICJ (International court of justice) and individual opinion of ICJ judges is different from the resolution of Security Council, doctrines and state practice. However developments after 9/11 ( 2001 ) and also the situation in Iraq and Syria and serious crimes by ISIS and other terrorist groups has gradually convinced the Security Council to consider the legitimacy of use of force and self-defense against terrorist activities of non-state actors such as ISIS.

States And International Institutions Have Put Countering Terrorism As A Serious Chalange Under Consideration And In This Regard Many Methods Have Been Used. After 9/11 Global Community within State - Centric Paradigm, Use Force To Suppres Terrorism But Failure Of These Forcible Methods Reveal two Things.
First ,Countering Terrorism By Merely Use Of Force Can`t Eventuate Desired Result.And Actually Will Deepening This Omnious Phenomenon. Second, Effectiveness Of Countering Terrorism Measures Is Based On Paying Attention To Roots And Nature Of Terrorism.
Utilization Of Fundamental Teachings Of Three Key Doctrines Of Humanization Process Of International Law, Good Governance, Human Security, Responcibility To Protect, Which Figure On Roots Of Terrorism Can Provide A Successful And Effective Method For Countering Terrorism.

Determining organ which is obliged to the implementation of the responsibility to protect for people who are exposed to serious human rights violations , is essential important . But , determining international institution binding to the intervention is important for that institution , too . Because this institution may face to increase with costs and military crises . At the same time , might work success in putting down situation against human rights , find a better place than before in the international system . The international intervention by this institution can increase the credibility of the United Nations and the responsibility to protect doctrine . On the contrary , the arbitrary intervention by any international institution , or a state can damage to the validity of the international law and the world order . So , the Security Council as a source of authority must work better than before.

Just War theory belongs to the ancient time even before the era of Jus Gentium. This theory had three different sections i.e. the Jus ad bellum with main focus on States right to wage to war; Jus in bello with concentration on means and methods of warfare; and finally Jus post bellum which dealt with the justice after war.
In this article, the main argument is the new concept of responsibility to protect is rooted in just war theory and as a result all obligations raised from that classic theory should be present in this new concept to protect the war victims.
The article then discusses the three pillars of R2P and finally argues that on the basis of R2P's Responsibility to rebuild, the international community beside the national State and the party to the conflict who violates the rules of jus in bello has a responsibility to protect war victims.

While in combat conditions, assistance to victims, citing the provisions of binding humanitarian law, often easily takes place, but there are no similar provisions in terms of natural disasters, and legal vacuum in this case, provides a fertile ground, for abuse of the traditional principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, in order to prevent international relief. In the meantime, international disaster response law as a new branch of public international law, is looking for log-on the basics of humanitarian assistance provided in such events, and the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, seems an appropriate field, for this purpose.
On the other hand, the international community is not reached a consensus about applicable the doctrine of the responsibility to protect in the case of disasters, and however, results of this study suggests that even on the assumption of the possibility of attainment a consensus by the international community for inclusion of this doctrine to natural disasters, will not creat a significant and effectiveness change in the international relief to the victims of such events, by itself.

In spite of that international community have seen very huge progress in different aspects of international law , especially in humanitarian law , but unfortunately it is in front of a lot of big crisis yet ; these crisis had attacked the body, wealth and security of many humans and also had attacked the authority and national security of many countries. Insufficiency of humanitarian introversion and its contrary with international regulations and also insufficiency of international security had forced international jurists to open new notions as the responsibility to protect in international area. according to this theory that criticized in the articles of 138 and 139 of the 2005 world summit outcome , each country has the responsibility to protect of it nationals against Genocide , war crimes , race cleansing and crimes against humanity an in the case of failure of responsible country , international community through united nation organization has responsibility to protect of humanity by restore to peaceful diplomatic and humanitarian instruments including other peaceful instruments mentioned in the sixth and seventh chapter of the charter of the united nations against Genocide , war crimes , race cleansing and crimes against humanity . The Security Council and some countries based their actions of intervention on the responsibility to protect in the crisis such as Sudan, Iraq, former Yugoslavia and Georgia. This theory that commenced during 90th decade recognized by the 2005 and 2009 world summit outcome and also welcomed by the international community has very strong bases in Islamic rules and we can find some roots for it in holy Quran and holy prophets jurisprudence. it is obvious that the acceptance and applying with the responsibility to protect or non observance to it ,will influence the national and international security.

This paper aims to investigate the diffusion of Human Rights Norms from the Viewpoint of IR Theories with Case Study of Responsibility to protect doctrine. It seems that there are five main mechanisms for Diffusion of Human Rights Norms: "Coercion" to mean legal and physical imposition, "instrumental rationality "refers to the impact on utility calculations, "imitation" to mean behavior ideas and norms use of peers for Problem solving and to enhance legitimacy, "normative rationality" refers to the response to social (not material) pressures and "persuasion" to mean non-coercive discursive interventions to promote mutual understanding and normative changes. Various documents related to the doctrine of "responsibility to protect" also showed that most of Human rights regimes emphasize on Persuasive, voluntary and Preventive mechanisms that based on internalization of Human Rights Norms for national, regional and international crisis management and this regimes less Focus on coercive mechanisms in the early stages of the crisis.