Preventing and Responding to Atrocity Crimes: China, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

With China on the rise, a question that is becoming increasingly important for international lawyers is that of the potential implications of Beijing's strident defense of State sovereignty for the international legal system. Against this background, a better understanding of Chinese interpretations of sovereignty appears not only useful but also desirable. This article contributes to clarifying some of the intricacies of those interpretations by examining China's approach to the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Through an analysis of both its conceptual and practical engagement with R2P, the article reveals that Beijing's attitudes towards questions of sovereignty and non-intervention in the context of humanitarian crises are more complex and nuanced than often assumed. After exploring the conditions under which China would accept infringements of sovereignty aimed at protecting basic values of humanity, the article suggests that the real challenge that Beijing will face going forward is not to show more willingness to engage in forcible interventions, but, rather, make credible contributions to peacefully preventing and halting the commission of atrocity crimes.

Responsibility to Protect and Rising Asian Powers

“…Barelli writes: ‘It is widely accepted, today, that the international community should contribute to prevent, and if prevention fails, to respond to atrocity crimes. What is less clear is under what circumstances, and how, it should do so’ (Barelli, 2018, p. 185). The UN has a long tradition of preference for dialogue and peaceful persuasion.…”

“…As a rising power, China has both the appetite and the capacity to influence global affairs (Barelli, 2018). China is the only pure Asian state among the five permanent Security Council members, having used the veto several times to halt suggested resolutions on Syria.…”

“…Today, China appears as a supporter of R2P pillars one and two, but rather than a short-term reactive response at the outbreak of a conflict, they support a long-term strategy for the lasting protection of vulnerable populations (Fung, 2016). According to Barelli (2018), Chinese officials embrace the idea that more power and global influence generate more responsibility. A more proactive approach involves China more directly in addressing complex international questions, adding Chinese perspectives to their solutions.…”

“…Towards Syria, China has abstained from some suggested resolutions vetoed by Russia and sided with Russia in others. Yet, they have also voted in favour of resolutions aimed at easing the humanitarian situation, including one demanding the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons (SC Resolution 2118 of 27 September 2013) and one authorizing humanitarian agencies to access rebel-held areas without government consent (SC Resolution 2165 of 14 July 2014) (Barelli, 2018). The third pillar is more problematic for China, due to their traditional reluctance to interventions.…”

“…If R2P represents such a challenge, it would be easily abused by states for self-interests (Fung, 2016). China sees sovereignty as the cornerstone of the whole system of international law (Barelli, 2018). Regime stability is paramount.…”