Cosmopolitans often argue that the international community has a humanitarian responsibility to intervene militarily in order to protect vulnerable individuals from violent threats and to pursue the establishment of a condition of cosmopolitan justice based on the notion of a ‘global rule of law’. The purpose of this article is to argue that many of these cosmopolitan claims are incomplete and untenable on cosmopolitan grounds because they ignore the systemic and chronic structural factors that underwrite the root causes of these humanitarian threats. By way of examining cosmopolitan arguments for humanitarian military intervention and how systemic problems are further ignored in iterations of the Responsibility to Protect, this article suggests that many contemporary cosmopolitan arguments are guilty of focusing too narrowly on justifying a responsibility to respond to the symptoms of crisis versus demanding a similarly robust justification for a responsibility to alleviate persistent structural causes. Although this article recognizes that immediate principles of humanitarian intervention will, at times, be necessary, the article seeks to draw attention to what we are calling principles of Jus ante Bellum (right before war) and to stress that current cosmopolitan arguments about humanitarian intervention will remain insufficient without the incorporation of robust principles of distributive global justice that can provide secure foundations for a more thoroughgoing cosmopolitan condition of public right.
There has been increased focus on atrocity prevention and the preventative elements associated with Pillar ii of the Responsibility to Protect. Policymakers and academics have offered a range of short-term preventative measures available so that the international community can better fulfil its Pillar ii responsibilities. This article challenges this current R2P thinking by arguing that its short-termism insufficiently focuses on de-escalation of risk within already present cycles of violence while dealing superficially with long-term causes and the ways in which the international community is a contributing factor in underwriting systemic and structural determinants of violence which erode state resilience against mass atrocity. As an alternative, this article examines a number of ways in which key actors of the international community contribute to determinants of mass violence and further offer recommendations for how they could better discharge their long-term preventative responsibilities by first reforming their own practices.
The 'Responsibility to Protect' report (RtP)
Policy ImplicationsThe RtP's idea of 'sovereignty as responsibility' places the blame for crises involving mass-atrocity crimes solely on the government of the state in which the crisis occurs.Protecting populations from harm -the key aim of the RtP -requires a broader understanding of the relationship between mass-atrocity crimes and poverty and inequality, including an understanding of the international community's role in creating the conditions in which these crimes occur.To be effective, a policy aiming to protect populations from harm requires a reorientation of priorities away from military interventions into crisis situations, and towards redressing structural, systemic causes of crises before they occur. In addition to development issues such as health and education, these might include restrictions upon arms sales and corporate activities in unstable regions, and a focus on nonmilitary, more consensual, diplomatic peace efforts.Addressing structural global inequality does not require a policy document such as the RtP. It adds little to the existing humanitarian intervention debate and detracts global attention and effort from addressing poverty and inequality.The RtP should not be implemented any further, either by civil-society groups seeking to gather support for the doctrine or by the UN Security Council in its resolutions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.