HUMAN SECURITY ANDRESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Dr. Vesselin Popovski

Senior Academic Programme OfficerUnited Nations University, Tokyo

popovski@unu.edu

UN University, Tokyo 1

HUMAN SECURITY PUTS HUMAN BEING IN THE CENTER

04/21/23 2

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

3

PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS IN ARMED CONFLICT

CHANGING NATURE OF WAR: VULNERABILITY OF CIVILIANS

Mary Kaldor, ‘New and Old Wars’ (2006)Traditional War: Uniformed state-controlled

armies: rules, stable patterns of practice‘New War’: Weak governments v. ill-trained

rebels, using child soldiers, illegal weapons and tactics: targeting civilians through starvation, rapes, ethnic cleansing

Traditional conflict resolution techniques (Chapter VI, peacekeeping) are less effective to ‘new wars’ and to POC

Civilians remain vulnerable (Ditchley, 2013)

UN University, Tokyo 5

THREATS TO PEACE AND SECURITY

Traditional Threats: - Aggression - Civil Wars- Weapons

Proliferation- Human Rights

Abuses- Terrorism 3000 victims on 9/11

‘New’ Threats:- Poverty,

malnutrition, population growth

- Climate Change- Natural Disasters- Organized Crime,

Corruption- Infectious Diseases3000 victims on 9/11

CANADIAN – JAPANESE APPROACH

Canadian approach Victims from civil wars,displacementReduce conflicts and mass atrocitiesSovereignty as responsibility; R2PHS reports (A. Mack) Reactive, crisis management

Japanese approachVictims of economic and social inequality Address root causes, structural violenceEmpowerment of communitiesUNDP reportsPreventive, avoid next disaster

UN University, Tokyo 7

TRADITIONAL V HUMAN SECURITY

Traditional Security Human Security

Promote state demands, all other interests are subordinate. Protects state borders, people, institutions

People-centred. Protect individuals and vulnerable groups. Address people’s needs and concerns

Defends states from external aggression, terrorism, piracy, international crimes

Address environmental pollution, diseases, economic deprivation, climate change

States are the actors, they execute decisions in anarchical society

Actors are also IGOs, NGOs, local communities

Build state power, military defense, arms, strategic alliances

Empowers people and societies

SECURITY OF WHOM? SECURITY FROM WHAT?

“Security of people, not just territory. Security of individuals, not just nations. Security through development, not through arms. Security of all people everywhere - in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets, in their communities, in their environment.” (Ul Haq 1995)

Security of all people from all possible threats-Inequality in economic opportunities, in access to education, science, technology-Environmental degradation -Forceful migration -Drugs trafficking and human trafficking-Preventable Diseases -Discrimination

SECURITY FOR WHOM? AND FROM WHAT? (ROLAND PARIS 2001)

Security for whom? What is the Source of the Security Threat?

MilitaryMilitary, Non-military, or Both

States

National security (conventional realist approach to security studies)

Redefined security (environmental economic, comprehensive security)

Societies, groups, and individuals

Intrastate security (civil war, ethnic conflict, and democide)

Human security (economic environmental threats to survival of societies, groups, individuals)

HUMAN SECURITY: COMPREHENSIVE AND INTER-DISCIPLINARY CONCEPT

Comprehensive• holistic umbrella concept, pays attention to diversity and

complex nature of security threats to individuals;• integrated solution for multifaceted issues (Hampson,

2004)• helps analysts to take into account variety of factors in a

specific situation of insecurity when assessing relationships between threats and vulnerabilities (Hitomi Kubo 2010)

Interdisciplinary• Facilitate dialogue between disciplines and integrated

analysis to decipher complex relations (Owen 2004)• powerful analytical tool, provide new approaches to, and

combine analysis from, the main UN themes: peace & security, development, human rights (Gasper 2004)

• potent framework: researchers from different disciplines can draw inspiration and expand the application of the concept

HUMAN SECURITY COMPONENTS

• Economic security: income from work/social net. Affects 75% of global population;

• Food security: poor distribution and storage, lack of purchasing power/access to education and work;

• Health security: diseases and unhealthy life-styles. Access to health services, clean water;

• Environmental security: air/water pollution, extreme weather events, climate change, natural disasters

• Personal security: crimes, domestic violence• Community security: protection from ethnic violence,

minority rights, indigenous people, protection of traditional relationship and values,

• Political security: society that honors human rights and dignity, freedom from torture and repression

FROM STATE SECURITY TO HUMAN SECURITY

Human Security was timely for all three UN agenda:Peace Agenda: less state centric, less territorial and military, more human;Development Agenda: less econometric, growth-dependent, more human, more environmentally sustainable;Human Rights Agenda: less state-dependent, less legalistic (word ‘security’ brings urgency)

Popovski, in McIntosh and Hunter (eds) New Perspectives on Human Security (2010) pp. 204-220

HUMAN SECURITY V HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights treaties and mechanisms address many parts of human security (Boyle & Simonsen 2004; Ramcharan 2004)Human rights and human security ensure both freedom from fear and freedom from want (Hoopes & Brinkley 1997)In the same way as human rights developed as comprehensive universal concept, unifying civil & political rights with economic, social &cultural rights; human security combines ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ components… Human insecurity does not necessarily arise from state action or inaction, it could be caused by individual criminals, by viruses, by industrial negligence or by natural disasters. The source of human insecurity is broader than the source of human rights violations (Popovski, ‘Negligence in natural disasters as human rights violations’ in Bacon, Hobson eds. Human Security and Natural Disasters (2014)

UN University, Tokyo 14

TYPOLOGY OF DISASTERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Type of Disaster Examples Accountability/Whom to blame?Political/Military disasters

Civil wars, conflicts, mass atrocities, terrorism, gross violations of civil & political rights

Governments (in some cases - rebel forces too)

Economic disasters

Gross violations of economic & social rights. Governments (private sector in a limited way)

Technological environmental disasters

Industrial pollution (Bhopal), Nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima), Oil spills (Gulf of Mexico)

Private sector (governments can regulate, mitigate, punish polluters)

Biological disasters

Viruses, diseases, epidemics Mother-Nature. Government, civil society, private sector can fund research, prevent, mitigate

Natural Disasters Earthquakes, Tsunami Mother-Nature. Government, civil society, private sector can warn, mitigate, reconstruct

Climate Change Extreme weather events: frequent cyclones, floodings, heats, fires

Everyone (Government, civil society, private sector, human being)

UN University, TokyoUN University, Tokyo 1616

R2P: LEGALITY AND LEGITIMACY OF R2P: LEGALITY AND LEGITIMACY OF USE OF FORCE USE OF FORCE

Legality: Self-defense or Security Council Legality: Self-defense or Security Council authorizationauthorization

Legitimacy Criteria: Legitimacy Criteria: • Seriousness of threatSeriousness of threat• Proper PurposeProper Purpose• Last ResortLast Resort• ProportionalityProportionality• Balance of ConsequencesBalance of ConsequencesInternational Commission on Kosovo: the intervention International Commission on Kosovo: the intervention

was ‘illegal, but legitimate’was ‘illegal, but legitimate’‘‘Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs’, Falk, Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs’, Falk,

Popovski (eds) (Oxford University Press 2012)Popovski (eds) (Oxford University Press 2012)

16

PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS (POC) IN JUST WAR TRADITION

‘World Religions and Norms of War’ (Popovski et al. ed.) UNU Press 2009.

Protection of Civilians (POC) originates in all world religions and has a long historical evolution (Islam prohibits poisonous weapons and targeting civilians)

Religions do not cause wars, but facilitate recruitment of soldiers

04/21/23 UN University, Tokyo 17

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Francis Deng (1996) ‘Sovereignty as responsibility’;

African Union Charter(1999) Art 4(h) ‘intervene in a Member State in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity’;

K.Annan, Two Concepts of Sovereignty, Economist’1999

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Co-Chair Gareth Evans Mohamed Sahnoun --2001 ICISS Report ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P)

18

R2P MYTH ONE

‘R2P is Western, neo-imperialist concept’Answer: R2P is not Western. From ICISS 12 commissioners: six from the South, six from the North. A danger for adopting R2P at the 2005 World Summit Outcome came exactly from the West: last minutes re-drafts by the US Perm. mission in NY (John Bolton)

19

FROM HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION TO R2P

Humanitarian intervention: interests of intervening states, consensus will be difficult, if not impossible; R2P focus on victims, people at risk. Rescuing victims builds consensus; R2P reconciles sovereignty with intervention, resolves controversy between positive notion of humanitarian and negative notion of intervention.

20

‘NORMS OF PROTECTION: R2P, POC AND THEIR INTERACTION ’ FRANCIS, POPOVSKI, SAMPFORD

R2P AND PROTECTION OF OF CIVILIANS (POC)

POC: FIVE MODES OF PROTECTION

1. Prohibitions on Harm: development, respect and promotion of IHL

2. Direct Physical Protection: security presence, patrolling and as last resort, threat or use force

3. Dedicated protection activities: specific to achieve objectives – early warning, risk assessment

4. Mainstreaming protection: not new actions, rather alter the way agencies operate with POC in mind

5. Restorative protection: remedy actions, return of refugees, compensations for victims

UN University, Tokyo 22

R2P AND POC

Common in origin, in humanitarian impulse, but different in scope and applicability:POC can be narrower than R2P: all war crimes fall under R2P(ill-treatment of PoWs), but not all would fall under POC, only those committed against civilians;R2P can be narrower than POC: does not apply to all armed conflicts, only those where mass atrocities have been planned and systematically committed.

UN University, Tokyo 23

POC: NARROW AND BROAD

Narrow (‘Combatant’) POC: applies to military strategies in the context of armed conflict, set down in IHLBroad POC: protecting populations in post-conflict, or if they are caught in grave, widespread, lawless violence, not reaching the threshold of armed conflict (for example, one-sided violence)

• Humanitarian POC• Peacekeeping POC• Security Council POC

24

R2P: NARROW, BUT DEEP

R2P is narrow in scope: applies to four atrocity crimes;

But it has a deep resource: everything in the domestic, bilateral, regional and UN systems, everything from prevention and early warning down to use of military force.

25

LEGAL SOURCES

R2P POC

1949 Four Geneva Conventions & 1977 Additional Protocols (war crimes)

1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (POC), prior IHL (ICRC), jus in bello traditions

1948 Genocide Convention (genocide)

Refugee Laws (1951 Convention, 2009 AU Convention on IDPs)

1998 Rome Statute for the ICC (crimes against humanity, forceful deportation)

Security Council Resolutions: thematic (Res. 1894) country-specific mandates

Domestic Law (Pillar One) National Army Manuals

Bilateral, Regional Law (Pillar Two) 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention

UN Charter, Chapter VI, VII, VIII measures (Pillar Three)

2010 Cluster Munitions Ban Convention

Relevant Human Rights Laws - non-discrimination of ethnic minorities

Relevant Human Rights Laws - prohibition of recruitment of children in armed forces

04/21/23 26

ACTORS

R2P POC

UN Secretary General: Joint Office of the two Special Advisors in New York

Armed Forces

Intra-state institutions, police, law enforcement (Pillar One)

Peace operations, UN Security Council, DPKO

DPKO, UNHCR, OHCHR, PBC, UNICEF, UNDP, SR on Children, donors, capacity builders, NGOs, regional mechanisms, AU, ECOWAS, OCSE HCNM (Pillar Two)

UN Agencies: UNHCR, OCHA

Mediators, fact-finding missions, SG, Security Council, regional organizations (Pillar Three)

ICRC

International Criminal Tribunals Humanitarian NGOs

04/21/23 27

R2P AND POC: RELATIONSHIP

• R2P and POC: ‘cousins, but not sisters’: reinforce each other, but there could be a tension, as R2P might be seen as too interventionist.

• Distinct norms, should not be conflated, but have powerful synergies, reinforcing applications and can exercise mutually supportive roles.

• R2P can be a catalyst for urgent action in potentially genocidal situations

• Urgent, conscience-shocking, media-grabbing R2P should not prevail over everyday abuses of civilians, where POC actors engage.

• R2P can be acceptable, if framed in more legal terms (IHL, war crimes) and with more preventive focus. If atrocity prevention succeeds, less burden for humanitarian agencies etc.

28

DEVELOPMENT OF R2P IN FIVE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL REPORTS

2009 ‘Implementing the R2P’ 2010 ‘Early warning, assessment’ 2011 ‘Role of regional/sub-regional arrangements in implementing R2P’

2012 ‘Timely and decisive response’2013 ‘State responsibility and prevention’

--------------------------------------------------------

2014 (?) Assistance (Second) Pillar 29

FIVE REPORTS; FOUR SITUATIONS; THREE PILLARS; TWO MODES

Five UNSG reports Four atrocity crimes: Genocide, War crimes, Crimes against humanity, Ethnic cleansing;Three pillars: States protect domestically; States States protect domestically; States help other states to build protection capacity; If help other states to build protection capacity; If states manifestly fail, international community states manifestly fail, international community protects through diplomacy, sanctions or force protects through diplomacy, sanctions or force

Two modes: responsibility to prevent/rebuild; and Two modes: responsibility to prevent/rebuild; and responsibility to react. They reinforce each otherresponsibility to react. They reinforce each other

30

R2P PYRAMID

Pillar 3: States unwilling to protect (1%)

Pillar 2: States willing, but unable to protect (15-20%)

Pillar 1: States willing and able to protect (80-85%)

31

R2P MYTH TWO

‘R2P is another word for military intervention’

Answer: R2P is only 0.33% about military intervention

32

POC AND R2P CHALLENGES

Gross violations of human rights that do not amount to civil wars or mass atrocity

Very state-centric concepts, but non-state actors are closely involved;

How to dealing with spoilers/perpetrators;Rely heavily on the Security Council with its anachronistic membership and veto

33

POC, R2P AND THE ARAB SPRING

The Arab Spring is not the first time when POC R2P are utilized by the UN Security Council – previous SC resolutions, such as on Sudan (Darfur) and Cote d’Ivoire, also use such language;

In Libya for the first time the Security Council (para 4, Res. 1973) authorized ‘all necessary measures’ for protection of civilians. No-fly-zone (para 5) has a precedent: Iraq (Res. 688). Limited use of force for humanitarian purposes has precedents in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda 34

2016 WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT

- POC as a broader concept, not limited to armed conflict

- POC as both legal and political concept- POC measurement/assessment as outcome, not

activity- Local v. international- Connection with disarmament and counter-terrorism

agenda and communities- Connections and synergy with R2P- Strategy how to deal with non-state actors, those who

co-operate and also those who don’t (‘spoilers’).

UN University, Tokyo 35