Abstract
AbstractGiven the multiple threats of atrocities in the world at any given time, where should states direct their attention and resources? Despite the rich and extensive literature that has emerged on the responsibility to protect (RtoP), little thought has been given to the question of how states and other international actors should prioritize when faced with multiple situations of ongoing and potential atrocities. As part of the roundtable “The Responsibility to Protect in a Changing World Order: Twenty Years since Its Inception,” in this essay we first demonstrate the importance of questions of prioritization for RtoP. We then delineate some of the issues involved in assessing the issue of prioritization, beginning with what we call the “basic maximization model,” and introducing additional atrocity-specific and response-specific issues that also need to be considered. We also emphasize the importance of considering how the need to address mass atrocities should be weighed against other global responsibilities, such as those concerning global poverty, global health, and climate change. We thereby set an agenda for future discussions.
Highlights
Given the multiple threats of atrocities in the world at any given time, where should states direct their attention and resources? In this contribution, we argue that despite the rich and extensive literature on the responsibility to protect (RtoP) that has emerged over the past two decades, little thought has been given to how states and other international actors should prioritize when faced with multiple situations of ongoing and potential mass atrocities
The third type involves concerns that go beyond the domain of the dilemma itself. This type entails the need to consider how the responsibility to prevent, react to, and ameliorate the effects of mass atrocities ought to be weighed against other global responsibilities, such as those concerning global poverty, global health, and climate change
If we look beyond mass atrocities, we may often find that the need to tackle situations of poor global health and global poverty is more pressing than tackling mass atrocity situations, given the sheer number of lives at stake from preventable disease and impoverishment and the magnitude of the impact that measures to address disease and poverty can provide
Summary
We argue that despite the rich and extensive literature on the responsibility to protect (RtoP) that has emerged over the past two decades, little thought has been given to how states and other international actors should prioritize when faced with multiple situations of ongoing and potential mass atrocities. This failure to address the question of where to protect renders RtoP an “imperfect duty,” with the effect of fueling criticisms of the selective application of international responsibilities for protection and leaving vulnerable populations unable to effectively claim their rights to protection. Leading RtoP figures (such as Karen Smith, the current UN special adviser of the secretary-general on the responsibility to protect, and the three previous special advisers on the RtoP) warn that the pandemic is likely to significantly increase the risk to already vulnerable populations as, for instance, hate crimes increase, those fleeing atrocities find even stricter border restrictions, severe economic hardships serve as a “trigger factor” for mass atrocities, and international attention and resources that in previous years may have been given to preventing and ending such atrocities are redirected elsewhere
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
