Abstract
Amsterdam Law Forum (ALF) is the student-run 'International Law Journal' of VU University. Every year ALF publishes a winter, spring, and summer issue. The journal consists of three sections; scientific articles, opinion articles, and commentaries. As of this year, ALF also creates a section for inaugural speeches. In addition, ALF hosts a conference in spring with a relevant legal theme, where renowned speakers are invited to share their perspectives. Overall, ALF is a topical journal that provides a platform for established scholars and young academics to share knowledge, opinions and experiences and to make contributions to the international law discourse. Staff, PhD students and master students who have written a very good thesis are invited to submit an article to ALF. What is learned in the cradle is carried to the tomb: we are looking forward to sharing your articles on our website!
Highlights
Over the course of four weeks the UN Security Council adopted a number of resolutions that evoked or explicitly referred to the Responsibility to Protect.Resolutions 1970 (26 February, 2011) and 1973 (17 March, 2011) on the situation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and resolution 1975 adopted by the Security Council on Côte d’Ivoire on 30 March 2011 suggest a significant shift in the Council’s action vis-à-vis mass atrocities
Whether or not one agrees with the sequence of policy decisions adopted in relation to both Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, and in particular with the decision to resort to military force, there is little doubt that the Council’s actions were a function of the risk of mass atrocities
The readiness to act in both Côte d’Ivoire and Libya clearly contrasts with the fatal paralysis that took hold of the UN during the Rwandan genocide and the painful dithering of both the UN and regional actors over the sequence of tragedies in the Balkans
Summary
Security Council resolution 1973 succeeded the request by the Arab League; resolution 1975 on Côte d’Ivoire—jointly tabled by France and Nigeria—followed the lead taken by ECOWAS and its resolution A/RES.1/03/11 of 25 March 2011 This policy shift and the apparent consensus to take action to protect populations at risk of mass atrocity crimes should be viewed against the backdrop of two constructive and forward-looking debates in the General Assembly, one formal and one informal. The condemnation which had called so strongly for a response was its first voice In both cases the R2P was a key ingredient in the decision by the Security Council to respond in a ‘timely and decisive’ manner to the spectre and evidence of mass atrocities. Likewise the response by the international community of states to these crises and its determination to act and intervene — even with the use of force — has clearly lived up to a good half of the expectations of R2P
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
