Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Atrocity Crimes Framing the Responsibility to Protect

  • Chapter
Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

The principle of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) has achieved, within a remarkably short span of time, a rhetorical presence in international politics and international law that has invited both praise and skepticism.’ In its simplest and most widely accepted formulation, R2P represents the responsibility of governments and the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity—all of which are categories of significant crimes that should be designated as atrocity crimes, both for purposes of accuracy when describing the basket of relevant crimes and for simplicity as a means of communicating with the global populace. In this chapter I will examine what is meant by each of these categories of crimes and by the unifying term, atrocity crimes. An understanding of the legal basis for R2P must underpin efforts to activate the principles of R2P on the world stage. In reality, not all atrocity crimes, particularly some categories of crimes against humanity and war crimes, necessarily justify military intervention as the most extreme application of R2P. Drawing the line between atrocity crimes that would merit and those that would lack justification for military intervention when all else fails under R2P could become an extremely difficult task in world affairs.

David Scheffer is the Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman Professor of Law and the director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
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.

Notes

  1. Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, “Final Address as Secretary-General to the Truman Museum and Library” (December 11, 2006), http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/statments_full.asp?statlD=40; Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, “Acceptance Speech on Appointment as the 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations” (October 3, 2006), http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sg_elect/ban_speech.htm; Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group and cochair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, “From Principle to Practice—Implementing the Responsibility toProtect” (April 26, 2007), http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4802&1=1; Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, Security Council, “Responsibility to Protect Civilian Populations Paramount, Special Committee on Peacekeeping Told,” press release, February 28, 2006, UN Doc. GA/PK/188, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gapk188.doc.htm (here inafter Special Committee Press Release").

  2. UN GAOR, Sixtieth Session, 8th plen. mtg., UN Doc. A/RES/60/1, para. 138 (October 24, 2005; hereinafter 2005 World Summit Outcome). See also UN SCOR, Sixty-first Session, 5,430th mtg., UN Doc. S/RES/1674, para. 4 (April 28, 2006): The Security Council “reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

    Google Scholar 

  3. “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. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.” Ibid., para. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  4. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, XI (December 2001),http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf.

  5. Ibid., XII.

    Google Scholar 

  6. UN Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, delivered to the General Assembly, December 8, 2004, UN Doc. A/59/565 and A/59/565/Corr.1, para. 201, http://www.un.org/secureworld/.

  7. Ibid., para. 203.

    Google Scholar 

  8. UN Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, delivered to the General Assembly, March 21, 2005, UN Doc. A/59/2005, para. 134, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/270/78/PDF/N0527078.pdf?OpenElement.

  9. Ibid., para. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  10. UN Security Council, Sixty-first Session, 5,577th mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.5577 (December 4, 2006), http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N06/640/61/PDF/N0664061.pdf?OpenElement; UN Security Council, Sixty-first Session, 5,474th mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.5474 (June 22, 2006), http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N06/401/01/PDF/N0640101.pdf’?OpenElement; Special Committee Press Release, see note 1.

  11. William A. Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, “Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” Judgment of the I.C.J., 26 February 2007, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf; See David Scheffer, “The World Court’s Fractured Ruling on Genocide,” Genocide Studies and Prevention 2 (2007): 123–36.

  13. David Scheffer, “Genocide and Atrocity Crimes,” Genocide Studies and Prevention 1 (2006): 229–50 (hereinafter Scheffer, “Genocide and Atrocity Crimes”); David Scheffer, “The Future of Atrocity Law,” Suffolk Transnational Law Review 25 (2002): 389–432.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9,http://www.un.org/icc, reprinted in ILM 999 (1998) (defining genocide in art. 6, war crimes in art. 8, and crimes against humanity in art. 7) [hereinafter “Rome Statute”]; International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000) [hereinafter “Elements of Crimes”].

  15. See Scheffer, “Genocide and Atrocity Crimes.” See note 13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Human Rights Watch, “Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity: Topical Digests of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” (2004), http://hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/; Human Rights Watch, “Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity: A Topical Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” (2006), http://hrw.org/reports/2006/icty0706/; William A. Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

  17. Scheffer, “Genocide and Atrocity Crimes.” See note 13, p. 238–39.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rome Statute. See note 14, article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98–33-T, Judgment (August 2, 2001); Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95–1A-T, Judgment (June 7, 2001); Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Case No. IT-95–10-T, Judgment (December 14, 1999) [hereinafter “Jelisic Trial Judgment”]; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ITCT-95–1-T, Judgment (May 21, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vokovic, Case No. IT-96–23, Judgment ( June 12, 2002) [hereinafter “Kunarac Judgment”]; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac andVokovic, Case No. IT-96–23/1-A, Appeals Judgment (June 12, 2002) [hereinafter Kunarac Appeals Judgment].

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prosecutor v. Kordi and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95–14/2-T, Judgment (February 26, 2001) [hereinafter “Kordi Judgment”].

    Google Scholar 

  22. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98–34-T, Judgment (March 31, 2003); Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95–14-T, Judgment (March 3, 2000) [hereinafter “Blaskic Judgment”].

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jelisic Trial Judgment. See note 19.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rome Statute. See note 14, article 7, section 1.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., article 7, section 2.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See the introduction to the section on “Crimes Against Humanity” in International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, reprinted in Selected Basic Documents Related to the International Criminal Court (ICC publication, The Hague, 2005) at 211.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kunarac Judgment and Kunarac Appeals Judgment. See note 20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kordic Judgment. See note 21.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Amnesty International, Argentina and Chile: The International Community’s Responsibility Regarding Crimes Against Humanity (1998), http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR030011998?open&of=ENG-332. Amnesty cites for Argentina the statistics “Comision Nacional sobre la Desaparicion de Personas, Nunca Mas—Informe de la Comision Nacional sobre la Desaparicion de Personas” (Argentina’s National Commission on Disappeared People), 1984, as well as Nunca Más (Never Again), 1986. For Chile, Amnesty International cites “The Reparation and Reconciliation Corporation, established in 1992 as a successor to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Rettig Commission) set up by President Patricio Aylwin, that officially documented 3,197 cases of victims of human rights violations.” See also Edy Kaufman and Patricia Weis Fagen, “Extrajudicial Executions: An Insight into the Global Dimensions of a Human Rights Violation,” Human Rights Quarterly, November 1981, at 81.

  30. UN Secretary-General, The Fall of Srebrenica, delivered to the General Assembly, November 15, 1999, UN Doc. A/54/549; Central and East European Law Initiative of the American Bar Association & the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Political Killings in Kosova/Kosovo” (1999), http://shr.aaas.org/kosovo/pk/p1_2.htm1, estimating that approximately 10,500 [individuals were killed] and a 95 percent confidence interval with an approximate range between 7,500 and 13,750 individuals killed between March 20 and June 12, 1999.

  31. U.S. State Department, “Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo” (fact sheet, April 22, 1999), http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_990422_ksvo_ethnic.html. This fact sheet indicates that 150,000 to 500,000 military-age men remain missing in Kosovo:’ See also Human Rights Watch, Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo (2001), http://www.hrw.orglreports/2001/kosovo/.

  32. Rome Statute. See note 14, article 7, section 1(g).

    Google Scholar 

  33. David Cortright and George Lopez, eds., The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000); Goler T. Butcher, “The Unique Nature of Sanctions Against South Africa, and Resulting Enforcement Issues,” New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 19 (1987): 821.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Amnesty International, Report 2006, http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/index-eng (accessed May 17, 2007).

  35. Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97–24-A, Judgment, para. 327 (March 22, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rome Statute. See note 14, article 7, section 1(h); emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00–39-T, Judgment, para. 735 (September 27, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid., para. 741.

    Google Scholar 

  40. International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, Report to the Secretary General (January 25, 2005), http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf; International Crisis Group, Darfur: The Failure to Protect (2005), http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3314&1=1; See also, in the context of R2P, Lee Feinstein, Darfur and Beyond: What Is Needed to Prevent Mass Atrocities, Council Special Report No. 22 (NewYork: Council on Foreign Relations Press, January 2007), https://secure.www.cfr.org/publication/12444/darfur_and_beyond.html.

  41. Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 3, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135; Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, December 7, 1979, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter “Protocol I”]; Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Conflicts, December 7. 1978, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 [hereinafter “Protocol II”].

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96–3-T, Judgment (December 6, 1999); see Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96–4-T, Judgment (September 2, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Kunarac Appeals Judgment. See note 20.

    Google Scholar 

  45. David Scheffer, “The Merits of Unifying Terms: ‘Atrocity Crimes’ and ‘Atrocity Law,”’ Genocide Studies and Prevention 2 (2007): 91.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. David Scheffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Richard H. Cooper Juliette Voïnov Kohler

Copyright information

© 2009 Richard H. Cooper and Juliette Voïnov Kohler

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scheffer, D. (2009). Atrocity Crimes Framing the Responsibility to Protect. In: Cooper, R.H., Kohler, J.V. (eds) Responsibility to Protect. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230618404_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation