Sovereign Responsibility Research Articles

Recommendations for Developing a Telemedicine Strategy for Botswana: A Meta-Synthesis.

Botswana is developing its eHealth capacity using a National eHealth Strategy. However, that strategy overlooks telemedicine, a potential solution for many healthcare challenges. For telemedicine to benefit Botswana, a telemedicine-specific strategy is required. While establishing a national strategy is a sovereign responsibility, guidance and recommendations can be provided. Using published resources specific to Botswana, key health-related issues were identified. These issues were matched with suitable telemedicine activities and delivery approaches. Recommendations were then derived from these for use in an effective telemedicine-specific strategy for Botswana. From 28 health-related issues, 6 were prioritised. Three telemedicine activities were identified (clinical services, education, and behaviour change), and one delivery approach was chosen (store-and-forward) because they align well with current needs, infrastructure, and mobile phone user capabilities. Since telemedicine has been proven to be effective, efficient, and cost-effective when implemented correctly, this knowledge and experience, plus a recognised strategy development framework, has led to evidence-based recommendations. Specific telemedicine options were identified as examples. As confidence grows, telemedicine options can be expanded to address additional clinical needs and explore alternative activities and delivery options. The recommendations can help the government develop a telemedicine-specific strategy that aligns with the National eHealth Strategy while actively promoting and supporting the adoption and system integration of straightforward telemedicine interventions. This foundation will facilitate the future expansion of telemedicine initiatives for the benefit of all Batswana.

Transboundary area: methodological considerations

Against the backdrop of rich theoretisation of borders, the nodal importance of the transboundary area requires articulating its conceptual, methodological, and analytical potential. Focusing on the subject of state borders, through terminology review the article contributes to better structuring the idea of a single zone, marginal for the centers on the both sides of the divide, as well as to presenting the transboundary in its capacities of a spatial level of operation, a medium, and a tool of analysis. It then sketches the transboundary area problem pattern that can be investigated within the same framework, being a transborder problem stemming from the perceptions of limits of sovereign responsibility and manifesting itself in negative effects from processes in inner polity regions and across the border. The article also discusses possible practical usage of the framework, providing the example of its applicability in transnational environmental governance research.

Sovereign responsibility: An impossible solidarity

This article takes interest in solidarity as sovereign responsibility. Sovereign responsibility is a nonproductive form of care that emerges at the interface of order defined by a privileging of economy and a general economy defined by a return to order of life lost to death. It is this return that unveils the existence and operations of a general economy that order presupposes. The article locates its discussion of sovereign responsibility at two levels of relationality. Firstly, it situates its deliberations concerning sovereign responsibility in the family and among kin. Here it argues that as a form of solidarity, sovereign responsibility positions relations among kin as those of neighbours. Secondly, it shows that the question of the neighbour extends beyond kinship relations and into the realm of extra-kinship relations where others and strangers appear as neighbours. The overall argument of the article is that sovereign responsibility holds potential to facilitate an Afrocentred and counter-hegemonic response to the modern experience of alienation.Contribution: The modern experience of alienation, as well as how it can be challenged, are of interest to this article. The article recognises that numerous attempts have been made to try and address this problematic of alienation in modernity. What it claims has not been done is to engage that problem by taking Africa as an idea, and not just geography, seriously.

Indigenous Sovereignty and the (Enlarged) Responsibility to Protect

ABSTRACT Canada has sought to ground its international legal sovereignty of the Northwest Passage by reference to Inuit “long usage.” This article argues that such a successful claim would win for Canada not a Westphalian status of sovereign control but an Indigenous concept of sovereign responsibility. Such Indigenous sovereignty is not only “formal,” requiring inclusion of Inuit in the form of government, but also “substantive,” committing Canada to protection of the physical and cultural environment. This concept of domestic sovereignty as responsibility might also build on the emerging international norm of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) by extending its realm of protection as a condition of sovereignty. This concept of sovereignty as stewardship rather than control might help to head off a colonial scramble for territory in the Arctic.

Are There Any Inherently Public Functions for International Law?

In “Are There ‘Inherently Sovereign Functions’ in International Law?”, Frédéric Mégret provides a deeply insightful reflection on “the essence of the state” from the point of view of international law, outlining a theory about the inherently sovereign functions in international law. He carefully identifies existing norms of international law that articulate certain public functions to be performed solely by the state rather than delegating them to private actors. Mégret offers functional and intrinsic rationales, suggesting that individuals have a right to benefit from certain public functions exercised by state authority, such as legislation and adjudication, what perhaps could be termed “the human right to the state.” In this essay, I suggest that it is indeed possible to derive such demands from the requirements of stable and sustainable governance that are embedded in the concept of sovereign responsibility, as well as from the rights associated with democracy and self-determination. I further argue that Mégret's inquiry can and must be extended also to explore the other side of the coin: the role of international law in facilitating (and possibly limiting) the delegation of public authority to unaccountable international organizations and other global governance bodies.

Russian Strategic Narratives on R2P in the ‘Near Abroad’

AbstractThis article assesses Russian strategic narratives towards its interventions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014–16) based on a new database of 50 statements posted on the websites of the Russian Mission to the United Nations and the President of Russia homepage. By looking more broadly at Russian strategic narratives aimed at persuading other global actors and publics abroad and at home, this article identifies how Russia attempted to develop a story that could win global acceptance. This analysis shows that contrary to traditional Russian emphasis on sovereign responsibility and non-intervention, Russia supported claims for self-determination by separatist groups in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia used deception and disinformation in its strategic narratives as it mis-characterized these conflicts using Responsibility to Protect (R2P) language, yet mostly justified its own interventions through references to other sources of international law. Russian strategic narratives focused on delegitimizing the perceived opponents, making the case for the appropriateness of its own actions, and projecting what it proposed as the proper solution to the conflicts. It largely avoided making any references to its own involvement in the Donbas at all. Additionally, Russia’s focus on the protection of co-ethnics and Russian-speakers is reminiscent of interventions in the pre-R2P era.

Addressing COVID-ified maritime migration in the Bay of Bengal: the case of stateless Rohingya boat people

ABSTRACT Historically, people have for a long time been using the seas to migrate perilously in unseaworthy boats and risking their lives primarily for safe havens when fleeing persecution or for gaining better economic opportunities in countries of destination. This kind of unsafe migration by sea continues even in the challenging times of countries trying to manage the global pandemic Covid-19. Governing maritime movements is as it is a complex challenge and Covid-19, by raising public health concerns and triggering border-closures across the world, has added to its complexity. Taking the case of Rohingyas, the world’s largest stateless minority who have been trying to seek refuge in Southeast Asian countries by taking perilous journeys through the Bay of Bengal, this article analyses the COVID-ification of migration by sea that has pitted the human rights of non-refoulement and rescue at sea against the sovereign responsibility of states to protect public health of citizenry.

A Short History of the Public Trust Doctrine and its Intersection with Private Water Law

This article explores the development of public trust principles from early Roman and British law through modern U.S. law as a public commons approach to natural resource management, especially with regard to waterways. It then analyzes the tension between the common pool approach underlying the public trust regulation of waterways and the contrasting theoretical premises of American laws that regulate private use of the water within them—especially the privatization model embedded in the doctrine of prior appropriations, which assigns perpetual rights to withdraw from the watercourse on a first-in-time basis. The public trust doctrine, the protagonist of much modern environmental advocacy in the United States, creates a set of public rights and responsibilities with regard to waterways and other natural resource commons. For hundreds if not thousands of years, the common law has recognized that some resources are so critical that they cannot be owned by anyone in particular—instead, they must belong to everyone together. Accordingly, most versions of the doctrine obligate the state to manage resource commons for the benefit of the public. Over the centuries, the doctrine gradually evolved from an affirmation of sovereign authority over these resources to a recognition of sovereign responsibility to protect them for present and future generations. In recent decades, it has evolved substantially in many U.S. states to address a broader variety of natural resources and a broader scope of public values associated with them, including not only navigational but also ecological values. Part I of the article introduces the public trust doctrine as a creatue of common law, constitutional law, and perhaps as an underlying feature of sovereign authority more generally, tracing its history from the Justinian statement of the jus publicum through the British Magna Carta to early American affirmations in both state and federal supreme courts. Parts II and III review the acceptance of public trust principles in modern U.S. law, their ratification in many state constitutions, and the questions that remain open about the extent to which the doctrine applies at the federal level—including its role as a background principle in constitutional takings analyses, and the extent to which it constrains even federal sovereign authority. Part IV explores the intersection of the doctrine with state water allocation law, reviewing the broad mechanics of the riparian and appropriative rights doctrines that can conflict with public trust principles. Conflict is especially pronounced between the public commons model that underlies the public trust and the privatization model embedded in the western doctrine of prior appropriations, as demonstrated by distinct approaches to reconciling them in California, Idaho, and Nevada. The analysis reveals how the unresolved relationship between these two sets of doctrines create ongoing friction in the water governance regimes that follow them, enabling us to better understand the core conflicts within water disputes—and, ideally, prevent them in the future. It concludes with reflections on the evolution of public commons doctrines and contrasting approaches to environmental rights, and the role they can play in helping us locate the dynamic equipoise between the conflicting values at stake in contemporary environmental disputes.

German teachers take legal action for full collective rights

In December 2018, eleven German teachers began their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, supported by the German teachers’ union GEW (Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft). The reason is the strike ban for civil servants in Germany, which was confirmed by the German Constitutional Court on 12 June 2018 . Roughly one third of all civil servants in Germany are teachers. More than 80 percent of teachers in public schools are employed as civil servants; the remainder are employed on fixed term or permanent working contracts. The teachers appealing the Constitutional Court ruling are working as civil servants in several of the German federal states. They have participated in strike actions organised by GEW, which were aimed at achieving higher wages or a reduction in teaching hours. As a consequence of their participation, they faced disciplinary measures for unauthorised absence, ranging from reprimands (with possible negative impact with regard to promotions) to monetary penalties. The German strike ban for civil servants is not explicitly mentioned in the German constitution, the ‘Grundgesetz’. Instead, the constitution refers to a formulation known as ‘Hergebrachte Grundsätze des Berufsbeamtentums’, which refers to the traditional principles of the civil servant status that date back to the nineteenth century and the Weimar Republic (1918–1933). The interpretation of these principles is basically case law. The principles encompass a duty of allegiance on the part of the civil servant, meaning obedience to the law and loyalty to the employer. The employer in return is said to have a fiduciary duty to remunerate his civil servants in a decent way according to the dignity of the respective position. Succinctly put, this conception means that civil servants are allowed to neither strike nor do they have the necessity to strike. GEW as a union has repudiated this total strike ban for decades, in line with the other unions organised in the national umbrella organisation, Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB). In this, the unions do not stand alone. The International Labour Organisation and other international organisations constantly criticise the German legal framework withholding civil servant’s collective rights and have repeatedly requested the German Government to revise this violation of basic human and workers’ rights. Now and then, GEW members have nevertheless taken part in strike actions, tacitly or proudly accepting the collateral disciplinary measures, since the jurisprudence of German courts seemed to be totally static. This changed after the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Demir1 and Baycara2 and Yapi-Yol Sen3. The Court asserted that restrictions on the rights of collective bargaining and to strike should be exercised as narrowly as possible. Remaining restrictions must be justified by the function the respective person is fulfilling, being limited to sovereign responsibilities of public administration. The legal employment status is not a sufficient justification to deny basic human rights. GEW saw this as recognition of its own legal arguments. Therefore from 2009 onwards, the union has supported numerous lawsuits of members who were disciplined after taking part in GEW strike actions. Several levels of jurisdiction found diverging answers to the question of how to reconcile the conflicting outcomes of traditional German civil servant law on the one hand, and international labour law and human rights on the other. As these cases reached the German Constitutional Court in 2018, the total strike ban for civil servants was affirmed all along the line, referring to the above mentioned principles of German civil servant law being an indivisible set of rights and obligations. The judges refuted any contradiction between the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and German jurisprudence. Since European human rights law had been at the centre of its cause of action in these cases, GEW motivated the eleven teachers to bring their cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They will be advocated by the union-based lawyers, Gewerkschaftliches Zentrum für Revision und Europäisches Recht der DGB Rechtsschutz GmbH. Notes 1 2 BvR 1738/12, 2 BvR 1395/13, 2 BvR 1068/14, 2 BvR 646/15 2 Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345 3 Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey [2009] ECHR 2251 20...

Providing for the other: rethinking sovereignty and responsibility in Southeast Asia

ABSTRACTThis article assesses the ethical discourse on and practice of ‘responsible provision’ adopted by the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) and the ADMM-Plus and their member countries. Despite their ambivalence towards the ‘responsibility-to-protect’ (R2Protect) norm advocated by the United Nations, Southeast Asian countries have in fact been developing a brand of sovereign responsibility that could be termed a ‘responsibility-to-provide’. Though less exacting in requirements compared to the R2Protect, this provision-based ethic – the ‘R2Provide’, if you will – still embryonic and patchy in its materialisation, is no less important as it reflects Southeast Asian states’ maturation as political communities and as responsible stakeholders in the international community. In contrast to the longstanding debate between communitarianism and liberalism as the appropriate normative and strategic foundations on which Southeast Asian countries ought to build political community, I propose that Emmanuel Levinas’ ethical concept of ‘responsibility to the other’, notwithstanding its demanding suppositions, offers a plausible basis on which to conceptualise the regional obligation of Southeast Asian countries as responsible providers.

Stanowisko Komisji Weneckiej dotyczące pozycji ustrojowej sądownictwa konstytucyjnego w demokratycznym państwie prawa

Debata, jaka toczy się od kilku miesiącu wokół Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, dotyczy jednego z zasadniczych fundamentów państwa prawa, jakim jest miejsce konstytucji w systemie źródeł prawa i związana z tym rola sądownictwa konstytucyjnego w systemie ustrojowym opartym na podziale władz. W toku wielu dyskusji ustrojowych, jakie toczyły się w naszym państwie od 1989 r., aksjomat dotyczący roli konstytucji i autonomii sądu oceniającego zgodność prawa z konstytucją, jako należący do europejskiej i demokratycznej tradycji konstytucyjnej, był nietknięty. Trwająca debata polityczna wydaje się ten aksjomat podważać.Skoro mamy do czynienia z tak ważnym fundamentem demokracji, jakim jest sądownictwo konstytucyjne, trudno się dziwić zainteresowaniu instytucji europejskich zmianami dokonywanymi w tym obszarze w jakimkolwiek państwie europejskim.Szczególną rolę w tym obszarze pełni Komisja Rady Europy nazywana potocznie Komisją Wenecką. Można ją określić jako swoisty organ udzielający doradztwa prawnego państwom z zakresu prawa publicznego. Działa na wniosek danego państwa albo organów europejskich. Komisja wskazuje w swoich opiniach na cały szereg merytorycznych kwestii istotnych dla zapewnienie autonomii i bezstronności sądów konstytucyjnych. Opinie Komisji nie mają charakteru wiążącego. Mimo niewiążącego charakteru, tworzone przez Komisję wenecką soft law jest istotne nie tylko dla państw będących jej członkami, ale także dla państw współpracujących z Komisją. Państwa te bowiem chcą być postrzegane jako należące do wspólnoty państw przywiązanej do idei praw człowieka, demokracji i rule of law w granicach nakreślonych przez Komisję Wenecką. Jako reputation-enhancing community, Komisja Wenecka stwarza państwom możliwość współudziału w przygotowywaniu tych standardów, a zarazem traktowania rekomendacji Komisji jako części swojej suwerennej odpowiedzialności za kształt system prawnego.

Sink or Swim: It is Time Ripe to Move in for an International Monetary Policy and Financial Stability Policy Coordination Mechanism

A new debate on revisiting global surveillance architecture follows every financial crisis. A new ‘system’ surfaces and fast transforms itself to a ‘non-system’ or even an ‘anti-system’ as it fails to pass the fundamental test of taking care of every sect - the powerful and the hapless. The mighty minority (the powerful and the rich), attempt to hijack the fate of the miserable majority at each turn. With the inherent resentment remaining within the whole of society, such ‘Top-Down’ approach of decision making is evidently not succeeding. It is hence time ripe as ever to test the efficacy of a newer configuration – the “Bottom-UP” structure of international policy making, in which the concept of hegemony – whether regional or global – benign or malign - would not have any place. It will be based on the emerging ideas of Financial Stability Councils being set up nationally, comprising of national authorities overseeing the Monetary Policy, Financial Sector regulation and Fiscal Policy. This ‘group’ would take a holistic view of issues of potential vulnerabilities and varying secondary and tertiary economic consequences which could be generated out of intra-sector, inter-sector and inter-economy connectedness. It would be macro-financial by nature and would rely on a ‘Committee Approach’ to address financial stability in a democratic, effective and legitimate manner. The idea would consider financial stability to be a ‘Public Good’ and its delivery being a sovereign responsibility. The national central bank supervenes as the pivot of this architecture which inspires confidence to be a possible solution to this ever-elusive problem of finding an appropriate design to address regional and international issues. Regional and Global Financial Stability Councils –a hierarchical enhancement over this ‘national system’ could be a possible solution for more coordinated global monetary policy and financial stability in the hope that it can reduce or even neutralize, the foreign externalities stemming from emerging markets in the regions. The idea here is a revised version of the concept of a Global Super Central Bank mooted by the Author in 2006 when the financial crisis was brewing in the US. The suggested ‘coordination mechanism’ remains bereft of hegemonic arrogance and would help improve mutual trust as a result, which is currently at a deficit. With ‘economic progress’ progressively replacing ‘political poles’ the idea sound very plausible. The World has no appetite for newer paper tigers. It is thus appropriate time to attempt a design of ‘new multilateralism’ backed by the notion that interconnection among nations will cure the evils to which it has given birth. However, the interconnection needs to be synergistically hierarchical in a ‘Bottom-Up’ manner. This is paramount. Nations may connect themselves as sub-regions, subregions as regions and eventually regions as global. US Fed tapering (instead of being seen or shown as a tantrum of a hegemon) could prove to be a facilitator of ushering in a decisive mandate generated out of collective wisdom of all. The “Chairs and Shares” mode of global governance should give way to a “CARE and SHARE” mode backed by the voice of all – of the majority and the minority alike. Let the chronology of monetary history (which has been) driven by “warfare” be steered in future by “welfare” of the human race.

Global health partnerships, governance, and sovereign responsibility in western Kenya

ABSTRACTThe delivery of resources to citizens in the global South is increasingly managed through international partnerships. As systems of plural governance, such arrangements are characterized by alignments, accommodations, and conflicts between partners’ respective interests. This article focuses on partnerships between the Kenyan Ministries of Health and organizations funded by PEPFAR (the President's Fund for AIDS Relief), drawing on fieldwork with Kenyan government health managers. These partnerships were based on a separation between the ability to provide resources and the right to administer them. For Kenyans, partnerships animated a politics of sovereign responsibility in which they often felt a deep sense of managerial disenfranchisement. For their foreign collaborators, partnership relations legitimized the interventions they organized. This politics of sovereign responsibility reconfigured the importance of the state on the basis of its role in delivering resources within global relations of inequality. [global health, PEPFAR, HIV/AIDS, governance, partnership, sovereign responsibility, the state, Kenya]

The Challenge of Future Space Systems and Services in Europe: Industrial Competitiveness Without a Level Playing Field

This article reviews the challenges and opportunities of market growth for space applications. Up to now, the development of space systems has been mainly driven by global or regional needs or sovereignty missions. The global dimension of satellites fits perfectly with the needs of customers requiring a global coverage. Meteorology, operational oceanography, TV broadcast, and global navigation systems are typical examples. In those domains, either the needs are global or the communities of users are well structured. Main customers (space agencies and governments) were able until now to invest in a proprietary capacity or to fund a significant part of the infrastructure. New elements shape today's landscape: the budgetary constraints affecting many countries weaken this model and rekindle the competition between the “usual suspects.” New players from new countries are emerging. At the same time, the new operational needs are more and more challenging (e.g., real-time and persistent surveillance of wide areas) and require dedicated capacities, while the users' demand is fragmented and spread over the world. Meeting the performance requirements will justify more and more a collective approach with capacity sharing. So far, collective solutions have been hampered by the reluctance of governments to share exclusive and sovereign responsibilities. The market of space applications is thus facing a general challenge regarding future growth: cost-effective solutions can be developed and operated only if the user base is consolidated. The comparison between the European and the U.S. “ecosystems” is very instructive: U.S. institutional and defense markets have provided until now key competitive advantages in the worldwide competition. Recent institutional initiatives at the European level (Copernicus, Galileo) balance this situation and improve the competitiveness of the European space industry. This evolution confirms the paramount importance of a strong institutional support, even for activities that are considered as “purely commercial” markets (e.g., satcoms). Nevertheless, a level playing field is still missing. Beyond technical issues, this article summarizes the findings of recent studies on the business cases and governance of space systems. Assessing examples in Europe and worldwide, the article analyzes the success factors, relying on a smart combination between institutional and commercial assets, dedicated systems and general purpose systems, and national versus European or international capacities, with a clear governance and mandate for the coordinating entities. Addressing fragmented markets will likely be the main growth opportunity in the coming years, while usual domains are becoming renewal markets. There is an opportunity for the services activity. Nevertheless, the main focus of this analysis is space infrastructure and more specifically the satellites needed for Earth observation, telecommunications, and navigation applications. The service dimension is addressed through its potential impact on the long-term sustainability of space systems. As already demonstrated for meteorology (with the cooperation between Eumetsat and NOAA on the Joint Polar System) and oceanography (with the Topex-Poseidon and Jason family), international cooperation plays definitely a major role. The successful implementation of large capacities will depend on the cooperation between two, three, or more stakeholders and is always a lengthy process. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of raising awareness and promoting best practices.

The Long and Winding Road: Air Traffic Management Reform in Europe

Air Traffic Management represents an irreplaceable condition for commercial air transport worldwide. As it provides an essential infrastructure it remains closely associated with the sovereign responsibility of the State involved. That public function and its consequences are increasingly subject of discussions in Europe. The European Union (EU), States and Corporate stakeholders are addressing the need for efficient and safe airspace management in Europe in the context of the perceived financial and operation advantages of the privatization of public functions and the acquired competencies of the EU.

Ethics, Law, and Humanitarian Intervention:

Ethics, Law, and Humanitarian Intervention:

The Sovereign Obligations of We, the People: An Argument for Compulsory Voting in the United States

This article presents an argument for compulsory voting in the United States on the grounds that the practice best meets our civic obligations under popular sovereignty. When popular sovereignty was established by the Constitution, it transferred not only rights but the sovereign responsibilities set out in Declaration of Independence to “the People,” as well. Most basic and inalienable of these sovereign duties is the obligation to participate in governance. Because the people in representative democracy “govern” through their vote, the basic principles of both the Declaration and the Constitution reasonably support a legal obligation to participate in national elections. In reorienting the compulsory voting debate away from higher turnout concerns and towards democratic theory, the paper also examines jury service as an analogous civic obligation. I argue that coercion in jury service reinforces, rather than undermines, democratic values of equality and individual public worth, and that the same affirmative principles for civic obligation should inhere to voting. The paper then sketches the elements of a fair and administrable compulsory voting policy in the United States, based largely on the Australian model (successful since 1924). Closing with responses to the most likely internal and external critiques of the main arguments presented, the paper ultimately aims to stimulate the debate on compulsory voting by inviting further challenges to – and support for – the policy.

Darfur and the responsibilities of sovereignty

An examination of the international community's response to the crisis in Darfur between 2004 and 2007 reveals two contradictory developments regarding the responsibilities of sovereign statehood. On one hand, the vast majority of states within the Security Council readily endorse the notion that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect populations. On the other hand, a few states, including two of the permanent-five, continue to insist that the international community cannot legitimately intervene in the affairs of a functioning state, even when the sovereign has manifestly failed to carry out its responsibilities, unless sovereign consent is granted. While important developments have been made in holding sovereigns to account over the last two decades, this continued assertion of the necessity of consent strikes at the heart of the notion that sovereignty entails responsibility. If consent is required before the international community can act, the notion that the sovereign state is responsible and accountable not only to its own people but also to the international community loses much of its meaning. The enjoyment of sovereign rights can only be understood to be truly conditional upon the observance of sovereign responsibilities if the international community can legitimately breach these rights in the absence of sovereign consent.

The antecedents of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’

Notions of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ and ‘the responsibility to protect’ are often fra-med as radical departures from the ‘traditional’ conception of sovereignty. Many assume that sovereignty has, until recently, entailed only rights and not responsibilities. In con-trast, this article argues that sovereign authority has been understood to involve varied and evolving responsibilities since it was first articulated in the 16th and 17th centuries. It then traces the historical emergence of the tension between the right of sovereign states to be self-governing and free from outside interference and their responsibility to secure the safety of their populations. It cautions against a simplified story of ‘traditional’ sovereignty which reifies supposedly concrete and ahistorical rights of sovereigns while casting sovereign responsibilities as a morally abstract and late-arriving challenge.

Special Issue for GR2P: Africa's Responsibility to Protect Introduction

AbstractThe introduction sketches the recent development of the 'responsibility to protect' norm and emphasises its African roots, both in terms of its conceptualisation and implementation and with particular respect to two tragedies—the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the crisis in Darfur since 2003—that have lent urgency to the norm's formulation and widespread international adoption. The number and extent of R2P cases in Africa are outlined and the roles of the African Union and Africa's regional organisations in implementing the norm are briefly considered. The introduction acknowledges the importance of examining R2P through African perspectives. Referencing the justifications and primary principles for action upon which the norm is founded, the authors also assess the relative strengths of competing notions of sovereignty in Africa. The essay further considers how R2P has come to be seen as a mechanism that can bolster the capacity of weak states to fulfil their sovereign responsibilities to their own citizens, and how new international obligations imposed upon states, and particularly those adopted in Africa, have made significant inroads into the old concept of sovereignty as territorial integrity and freedom from external interventions.