Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

1. A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing has emerged as an important global principle since the adoption of the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005. Since the conception of R2P, individual states and regional organizations, the UN, civil society, and experts around the world have worked to establish what implementation of R2P and the prevention of mass atrocity crimes means in practice. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect have developed a guide for states on steps to take to protect populations from atrocity crimes, at home and abroad. “A Framework for Action for the Responsibility to Protect: A Resource for States” consolidates and builds upon existing expertise from published works and best practice from states, regional organizations and the UN on how to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes. We encourage all states to utilize this framework to assess gaps and identify opportunities to address atrocity risks in their own countries, as well as to understand options available for responding to risks in their region and around the world.
Topic:
International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Recommendations on the systematic inclusion of a gender lens to UN Human Rights Council mechanisms and procedures

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
UN Special Procedures, including Special Rapporteurs or Independent Experts, and Human Rights Council (HRC)-mandated investigative mechanisms, such as Commissions of Inquiry (CoI) or Fact-Finding Missions, often apply a gender lens when looking at situations at risk of, or experiencing, atrocity crimes. However, this practice is not yet systematic across the UN human rights system. Since women and girls are uniquely affected and targeted in many situations where atrocity crimes are being perpetrated, the systematic application of a gender lens would enhance holistic atrocity prevention strategies and improve the effective implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The following recommendations aim to provide a framework to further strengthen and institutionalize the gender lens in HRC mechanisms and procedures.
Topic:
United Nations, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The Responsibility to Protect: A Background Briefing

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept sought to confront both the Rwanda tragedy and the Kosovo dilemma by stipulating that states have an obligation to protect their citizens from mass atrocity crimes; that the international community will assist them in doing so; and that, should the state be “manifestly failing” in its obligations, the international community is obliged to act. R2P seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to act in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. By accepting a collective responsibility to protect, the international community issued a solemn pledge that it cannot lightly ignore.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, Conflict, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Norms
Political Geography:
Kosovo, Rwanda, and Global Focus

4. The Relationship Between Violations and Abuses of Human Rights and the Commission of Atrocity Crimes

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The Responsibility to Protect is a political commitment made by heads of state and government at the 2005 UN World Summit aimed at preventing and halting four mass atrocity crimes, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. In doing so, states agreed that governments have the primary responsibility to protect populations within their borders from atrocity crimes, that the international community should help states in building the capacity to uphold this responsibility, and that when a state is unwilling or manifestly failing to do so, the international community must be prepared to take timely and decisive collective action in accordance with the UN Charter. Atrocity crimes do not occur in a vacuum, nor are they isolated or random incidents. Rather, they are typically the consequence of a broader process. In order to adequately prevent and respond to the threat of atrocity crimes, there is a need to understand the early warning signs, risk factors and aggravating conditions that may culminate in the perpetration of such grave crimes. Systematic or widespread human rights violations and abuses often serve as one of the key early warning signs of possible atrocity crimes. This briefing paper aims to examine the relationship between mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations and abuses, highlighting that such violations and abuses may precede and significantly elevate atrocity risks and may also constitute atrocity crimes themselves if certain thresholds or conditions are met.
Topic:
Human Rights, United Nations, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. UN Security Council Elections for 2021-2022 and the Responsibility to Protect

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Today and yesterday, 17-18 June 2020, the UN General Assembly elected India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico and Norway to the UN Security Council for the period of 2021-2022. With their election, 7 of the 15 members of the Council in 2021 will be “Friends of the Responsibility to Protect” – having appointed an R2P Focal Point and/or joined the Group of Friends of R2P in New York and Geneva. Despite its role as the UN body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, all too often the Security Council has been unable to take timely action on mass atrocity situations due to deep political divisions inside the Council over human rights, conflict prevention and national sovereignty. In recent years this has had a debilitating effect on the Council’s capacity to respond to atrocities in Myanmar, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. It is therefore more important than ever for Council members to work in creative ways to ensure that the international community is able to take timely, practical action to prevent atrocities and protect vulnerable populations. Since 2005 the Security Council has adopted 84 resolutions and 21 Presidential Statements that refer to the Responsibility to Protect, including with regard to situations in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Syria and eight other country situations, as well as a number of thematic issue areas. As we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect, it is our hope that the Security Council will consistently uphold their commitment to taking decisive action to avert emerging crises and halt atrocities wherever they are threatened.
Topic:
United Nations, Elections, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
Kenya, India, Norway, Mexico, Ireland, and Global Focus

6. Q&A: The Gambia v. Myanmar, Rohingya Genocide at The International Court of Justice, May 2020 Factsheet

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
According to the UN Human Rights Council-mandated Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM), the treatment of the Rohingya population during the “clearance operations” amounts to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the commission of which evoke specific obligations and responsibility under international law. In its final report, published in September 2019, the FFM concluded that “the State of Myanmar breached its obligation not to commit genocide” and found that Myanmar “continues to harbor genocidal intent” towards the Rohingya, emphasizing the need for accountability. This fact sheet answers fundamental questions about the ongoing ICJ case, Myanmar’s responsibility for genocide and its impact on the Rohingya population. (Answers to questions about the early stages of the lawsuit are here.)
Topic:
Security, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Rohingya
Political Geography:
Myanmar, Global Focus, and Gambia

7. Human Rights Council Investigative Mechanisms and Mass Atrocity Prevention

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Since the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was unanimously adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit, the international community has looked to the UN Security Council in New York to respond when a government has been unwilling or unable to protect its population from war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or ethnic cleansing. Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document recognize the Security Council’s unique role with regard to upholding the international community’s responsibility to protect as the body primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, the Human Rights Council (HRC) and other Geneva-based mechanisms are also essential for preventing atrocity crimes. Since systematic or widespread human rights violations serve as early warning signs of possible atrocities, Geneva-based mechanisms are often the first to raise the alarm regarding situations where violations and abuses threaten to deepen or deteriorate. Such mechanisms play an important role in enabling the international community to assist states in preventing mass atrocities (R2P’s Pillar II) and respond in a timely and decisive manner to atrocity risks (Pillar III).
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), UN Security Council, and Atrocities
Political Geography:
United Nations and Global Focus

8. Q&A: The International Court of Justice & the Genocide of the Rohingya

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
FACTSHEET | NOVEMBER 2019: Starting in October 2016 and then again in August 2017, Myanmar’s security forces engaged in so-called “clearance operations” against the Rohingya, a distinct Muslim ethnic minority, in Rakhine State, Myanmar. The operations, in particular those that started in August 2017, were characterized by brutal violence and serious human rights violations on a mass scale. Survivors report indiscriminate killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detention, torture, beatings, and forced displacement. Reports have also shown that security forces were systematically planning for such an operation against the Rohingya even before the purported reason for the violence — retaliation for small scale attacks committed by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) — occurred. As a result, an estimated 745,000 people — mostly ethnic Rohingya — were forced to flee to Bangladesh. According to the UN Human Rights Council-mandated Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM), the treatment of the Rohingya population during the “clearance operations” amounts to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the commission of which evokes specific obligations and responsibility under international law. In its final report, published in September 2019, the FFM concluded that “the State of Myanmar breached its obligation not to commit genocide” and found that Myanmar “continues to harbor genocidal intent” towards the Rohingya. On November 11, 2019, The Republic of The Gambia filed suit against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) for violating the Genocide Convention. This momentous lawsuit brings a critical focus to Myanmar’s responsibility as a state for genocide and compliments ongoing investigations into individual accountability. This fact sheet answers fundamental questions about the ICJ case, and seeks to clarify available avenues for justice for the crimes committed against the Rohingya population.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Law, United Nations, State Violence, Atrocities, and International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Political Geography:
Asia, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar

9. The Persecution of the Uighurs and Potential Crimes Against Humanity in China

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The treatment of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region has increased concerns over the risk of widespread and systematic human rights abuses and violations in China. The government’s approach to combatting religious extremism has resulted in the arbitrary detention of up to one million Uighurs, severe restrictions on religious practice, and pervasive surveillance and control of the entire Muslim population of Xinjiang. A new joint policy brief by the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect asserts that these policies may constitute crimes against humanity under international law. The policy brief provides an overview of China’s response to growing international pressure to halt the persecution of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in the Xinjiang region and offers recommendations on how to comprehensively address these issues.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Islam, Ethnicity, Freedom of Expression, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocities, and Crimes Against Humanity
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Xinjiang

10. The UN Security Council’s Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect: A Review of Past Interventions and Recommendations for Improvement

Author:
Jared Genser
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
When it was adopted by the United Nations (UN) system in 2005, the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was meant to provide an implementation mechanism for the international community to respond to governments that were perpetrating the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. As R2P is now in its second decade of existence, it is important to evaluate past implementation of R2P by the UN Security Council — the UN body charged with taking collective action when all other preventive efforts have failed and atrocity crimes are being committed or are imminent. This briefing paper is a summary of a more detailed law review article recently published in the University of Chicago Journal of International Law.
Topic:
Genocide, War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing, International Community, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), UN Security Council, and Crimes Against Humanity
Political Geography:
United Nations and Global Focus