Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Law and the Application of the Third Pillar Approach

  • Chapter
The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar

Abstract

The traumatic experiences of Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia, among others, in the 1990s and 2000s underlined the need for an effective international response to mass atrocities. This has led to the creation of international criminal tribunals with jurisdiction to try specific individuals for “atrocity crimes” (Scheffer, 2012). The crisis and eventual military intervention in Kosovo at the end of the 20th century further underlined an apparent discrepancy between the international legality of an intervention not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and its legitimacy, arguably stemming from it being indispensable to stop grave human rights violations (see Independent International Commission on Kosovo, 2000: p. 4). Within the framework of this debate, the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) was proposed as a comprehensive agenda delineating the collective responsibilities of states and the international community1 to prevent and, if necessary, intervene effectively and in a timely manner in order to stop mass atrocities (ICISS Report, 2001). Of particular interest for the analysis here is the third pillar of the RtoP, whereas the other two pillars are also revisited to the extent necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the international legal status of the RtoP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailes, A.J.K. (2008) “The EU and a ‘Better’ World: What Role for the European Security and Defence Policy?” International Affairs, 84(1): pp. 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, A.J. (2013) “Making RtoP a Living Reality: Reflections on the 2012 General Assembly Dialogue on Timely and Decisive Response”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(1): pp. 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, A.J. (2011) “Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm”, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3): pp. 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White, W.W. (2012) “Adoption of the Responsibility to Protect”, in Genser, J. and Cotler, I. (eds.) The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press): pp. 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero-Anthony, M. and Chng, B. (2009) “Cyclones and Humanitarian Crises: Pushing the Limits of R2P in Southeast Asia”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 1(2): pp. 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chertoff, M. (2009) “The Responsibility to Contain: Protecting Sovereignty under International Law”, Foreign Affairs, 88(1): pp. 130–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhabra, T. and Zucker, J.B. (2012) “Defining the Crimes”, in Genser, J. and Cotler, I. (eds.) The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press): pp. 37–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contarino, M. and Lucent, S. (2009) “Stopping the Killing: The International Criminal Court and Juridical Determination of the Responsibility to Protect”, Global Responsibilityto Protect, 1(4): pp. 560–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contarino, M., Negrón-Gonzales, M. and Mason, K.T. (2012) “The International Criminal Court and Consolidation of the Responsibility to Protect as an International Norm”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(3): pp. 275–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuyckens, H. and De Man, P. (2012) “The Responsibility to Prevent: On the Assumed Legal Nature of Responsibility to Protect and its Relationship with Conflict Prevention”, in Hoffmann, J. and Nollkaemper, A. (eds.) Responsibility to Protect from Principle to Practice (Amsterdam: Pallas Publications): pp. 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baere, G. (2013) “The EU and the Responsibility to Protect”, in Van Vooren, B., Blockmans, S. and Wouters, J. (eds.) The EU’s Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension (Oxford: Oxford University Press): pp. 95–109.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Bustamante, R. (2012) “R2P and the Arab Spring: What Role for the European Union? — A View from the EEAS”, speech at a conference organized by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Leuven, 17 April 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deller, N. (2012) “Challenges and Controversies”, in Genser, J. and Cotler, I. (eds.) The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press): pp. 62–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F.M. (2011) “Divided Nations and the Challenges of Protection”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 3(4): pp. 438–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F.M. (2010) “From ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’ to the ‘Responsibility to Protect’”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 2(4): pp. 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F.M. (1995) “Frontiers of Sovereignty”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 8(2): pp. 249–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2006) “Sovereignty as Responsibility”, Orbis, 50(1), pp. 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2009) Resolution of 19 February 2009 on the European Security Strategy and ESDP (2008/2202(INI)), (2010/C 76 E/13).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2008) Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy: Providing Security in a Changing World, S407/08.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (2009) “Russia, Georgia and the Responsibility to Protect”, Amsterdam Law Forum, 1(2): pp. 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, M.J. (2009) “R2P, Humanitarian Intervention and Independence: The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating”, Amsterdam Law Forum, 1(2): pp. 4–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiott, D. and Vincent, M. (2013) “The European Union”, in Zyberi, G. (ed.) An Institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press): pp. 199–219.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Francioni, F. (2005) “Balancing the Prohibition of Force with the Need to Protect Human Rights: A methodological Approach”, in Cannizzaro, E. and Palchetti, P. (eds.) Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers): pp. 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, L. (2012) “The Responsibility to Protect Beyond Borders”, Human Rights Law Review, 12(1): pp. 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grygiel, J. (2010) “The Costs of Respecting Sovereignty”, Orbis, 54(2): 268–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R.J. (2006) “The Responsibility to Protect: From Document to Doctrine — But what of Implementation?” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 19: pp. 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. (1961) The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Law Series).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. (1958) “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals”, Harvard Law Review, 71(4): pp. 593–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (2011) “Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World”, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3): pp. 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICISS. (2001) The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre).

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice. (1948) Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the united Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1950, I.O Judge Alvarez.

    Google Scholar 

  • Independent International Commission on Kosovo. (2000) The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned, (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd White, E. (2009) “Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty: Four Replies to Anne Peters”, The European Journal of International Law, 20(3): pp. 545–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, E.C. (2012) “The Responsibility to Protect: The Journey”, in Hoffmann, J. and Nollkaemper, A. (eds.) Responsibility to Protect from Principle to Practice (Amsterdam: Pallas Publications): pp. 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, E.C. (2011) “The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 3(4): pp. 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, E.C. (2009) “Sovereignty, Choice and the Responsibility to Protect”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 1(1): pp. 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClean, E. (2008) “The Responsibility to Protect: The Role of International Human Rights Law”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 13(1): pp. 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milano, E. (2013) “The Deterritorialization of International Law”, European Society of International Law Reflections, 2(3) (13 March 2013). See: http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/311

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (2005) “The Problem of Global Justice”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33(2): pp. 113–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, M.E. (2005) “Taking Opinio Juris Seriously, A Classical Approach to International Law on the Use of Force”, in Cannizzaro, E. and Palchetti, P. (eds.) Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Leiden: Brill): pp. 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orford, A. (2013) “Moral Internationalism and the Responsibility to Protect”, The European Journal of International Law, 24(1): pp. 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orford, A. (2011) “From Promise to Practice? The Legal Significance of the Responsibility to Protect Concept”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 3(4): pp. 400–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization of the Islamic Conference. (2011) Final Communiqué Issued By the Emergency Open Ended Ministerial Meeting of the OIC Executive Committee on the Alarming Developments in Libyan Jamahiriya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Court of International Justice, The SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Reports Ser. A, No. 10 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. (2009a) “Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty”, The European Journal of International Law, 20(3): pp. 513–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. (2009b) “Humanity as the A and Ω of Sovereignty: A Rejoinder to Emily Kidd White, Catherine E. Sweetser, Emma Dunlop and Amrita Kapur”, The European Journal of International Law, 20(3): 569–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinold, T. (2013) Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect (London/New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkin, J. (2010) “The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention in Africa”, Global Responsibility to Protect, 2(4): pp. 371–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkin, J. (2009) “The Role of the United Nations, the African Union and Africa’s Sub-Regional Organizations in Dealing with Africa’s Human Rights Problems: Connecting Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect”, Journal of African Law, 53(1): pp. 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, D. (2012) All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahn, C. (2007) “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?” American Journal of International Law, 101(1): pp. 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, R. (2011) The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws and the Use of Force in International Politics (London/New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (9 December 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSG. (2011) Report on The Role of Regional and Sub-regional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, UN Doc. A/65/877-S/2011/393.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSG. (2009) Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, UN Doc. A/63/677.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSG. (2007) Letter dated 31 August 2007 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2007/721, 7 December 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA. (2005) 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC. (2011) S/RES/1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC. (2006a) S/RES/1706.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC. (2006b) S/RES/1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC. (2006c) S/RES/1755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross, A. and Koeck, H.F. (1983) “Natural Law: The Tradition of Universal Reason and Authority”, in Macdonald, R.St.J. and Johnston, D.M. (eds.) The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers): pp. 17–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 4th ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, J. (2011) “Civilian Protection in Libya: Putting Coercion and Contgroversy Back into RtoP”, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3): pp. 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, J., De Man, P. and Vincent, M. (2012) “The Responsibility to Protect and Regional Organisations: Where Does the European Union Stand?” in Hoffmann, J. and Nollkaemper, A. (eds.) Responsibility to Protect from Principle to Practice (Amsterdam: Pallas Publications): pp. 247–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyberi, G. (2013) “The International Court of Justice”, in Zyberi, G. (ed.) An Institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): pp. 365–385.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Thomas Ramopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium

    Daniel Fiott (Researcher) & Joachim Koops (Research Professor) (Researcher) &  (Research Professor)

Copyright information

© 2015 Thomas Ramopoulos

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ramopoulos, T. (2015). International Law and the Application of the Third Pillar Approach. In: Fiott, D., Koops, J. (eds) The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137364401_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation