Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Protect? Humanitarian
Intervention and the 2005
World Summit
Alex J. Bellamy*
I
n the months immediately following NATO’s contentious intervention
in Kosovo, Kofi Annan reflected on the dilemma of humanitarian inter-
vention. ‘‘On the one hand,’’ he asked, ‘‘is it legitimate for a regional
organization to use force without a UN mandate? On the other, is it
permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave
1
humanitarian consequences, continue unchecked?’’ Annan challenged interna-
tional society to avoid ‘‘future Kosovos’’ (cases where the Security Council
considers action but is deadlocked about whether to intervene to prevent
humanitarian crises from worsening) and ‘‘future Rwandas’’ (cases where the
Security Council fails even to consider taking decisive action in the face of
2
genocide, mass murder, and/or ethnic cleansing). The challenge was taken up
by scholars and political leaders, most notably by the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), an independent panel partly funded by
the Canadian government. In its report, The Responsibility to Protect, the ICISS
insisted that the primary responsibility for protecting civilians lay with the host
state and that outside intervention could only be contemplated if the host proved
3
either unwilling or unable to fulfill its responsibilities.
* I would like to thank Paige Arthur, Luke Glanville, Justin Morris, Paul D. Williams, Nicholas J. Wheeler, the
three anonymous reviewers for Ethics ! International Affairs, and especially Sara E. Davies for their help and
advice in preparing this article.
1 Kofi Annan, ‘‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty,’’ Economist, September 18, 1999, p. 49.
2 Nicholas J. Wheeler, ‘‘A Victory for Common Humanity? The Responsibility to Protect after the 2005 World
Summit’’ (paper presented to a conference on ‘‘The UN at Sixty: Celebration or Wake?’’ Faculty of Law, Uni-
versity of Toronto, October 6–7, 2005), p. 1.
3 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: ICISS,
143
4
After the publication of The Responsibility to Protect, the ICISS’s commis-
sioners and supporters lobbied hard to persuade states to endorse the concept
and to adopt it at the 2005 World Summit. They appeared to succeed. Para-
graphs 138 and 139 of the summit’s outcome document stated:
Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from gen-
ocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsi-
bility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through
appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in
accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, en-
courage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United
Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
The international community, through the United Nations, also has the re-
sponsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful
means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter of the United
Nations, to help protect populations from war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective ac-
tion, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in ac-
cordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and
in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should
peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to
protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
5
crimes against humanity.
4 Throughout this article, ‘‘the responsibility to protect’’ refers to the concept and The Responsibility to Protect to
doc/UNDOC/LTD/N05/511/30/PDF/N0551130.pdf?OpenElement.
6 Todd Lindberg, ‘‘Protect the People,’’ Washington Times, September 27, 2005; available at washingtontimes.com/
op-ed/20050926-092335-2083r.htm.
7 Michael Byers, ‘‘High Ground Lost on UN’s Responsibility to Protect,’’ Winnipeg Free Press, September 18,
2005, p. B3.
8 The idea of distinguishing between the prescriptive and permissive elements of the humanitarian intervention
University Press, 2000); and Michael Walzer, ‘‘The Argument about Humanitarian Intervention,’’ Dissent 49,
no. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 29–37; available at www.pol.uiuc.edu/alumni/XTRACLINE%5CDissent%20Magazine
%20-%20Winter%202002.htm.
11 Especially Christian Reus-Smit, American Power and World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005).
12 On implied authorization, see Michael Byers, War Law (London: Atlantic Books, 2005), pp. 40–50.
13 Lloyd Axworthy, Gareth Evans, and Ramesh Thakur. See ‘‘Responsibility to Protect: Redefining Sovereignty,’’
MacArthur Newsletter (Summer 2005), p. 9. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for bringing this
to my attention.
14 The importance of generating political will was understood at the outset by the ICISS commissioners.
See Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect,’’ Foreign Affairs 81, no. 6 (2002),
pp. 99–110.
15 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, paras. 6.19–6.21. ICISS (para. 6.21) reported that this proposal was pre-
sented to the Commission ‘‘in an exploratory way by a senior representative of one of the Permanent Five
Countries.’’
16 Nicholas J. Wheeler, ‘‘Legitimating Humanitarian Intervention: Principles and Procedures,’’ Melbourne Jour-
Military Force,’’ American Journal of International Law 67, no. 2 (1973), pp. 275–305.
18 David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention (London: Pluto, 2002),
p. 135.
19 Statement by Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, at the General Debate of the 60th Session of the United
ICISS commissioners. See Evans and Sahnoun, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect,’’ p. 101; Thakur, ‘‘No More
Rwandas’’; Ramesh Thakur, ‘‘Iraq and the Responsibility to Protect,’’ Behind the Headlines 61, no. 1 (2004), pp.
1–16; and Ramesh Thakur, ‘‘Developing Countries in the Intervention-Sovereignty Debate,’’ in Richard M. Price
and Mark W. Zacher, eds., The United Nations and Global Security (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004),
pp. 194–208.
24 Wheeler, ‘‘Legitimating Humanitarian Intervention,’’ p. 566.
25 Alex J. Bellamy, ‘‘Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Inter-
vention after Iraq,’’ Ethics ! International Affairs 19, no. 2 (2005), pp. 31–54.
26 This problem is raised in relation to preemption by Michael Byers, ‘‘Preemptive Self-Defense: Hegemony,
Equality, and Strategies of Legal Change,’’ Journal of Political Philosophy 11, no. 2 (2003), p. 182.
27 Byers, ‘‘Preemptive Self-Defense,’’ p. 182.
28 The problem for activist nonpermanent members was exacerbated by the lack of quality information pro-
vided by the UN secretariat. After briefings by NGOs that confirmed that genocide was under way in Rwanda,
the activist states were resolutely blocked by three permanent members (the United States, China, and the U.K.)
and found it difficult to mobilize the nonaligned members to bring pressure to bear on the permanent mem-
bers. See Colin Keating, ‘‘Rwanda: An Insider’s Account,’’ in David M. Malone, The UN Security Council: From
the Cold War to the 21st Century (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2004), pp. 500–11.
29 Susan L. Carruthers, The Media at War (London: Macmillan, 1999), p. 220.
30 Quoted by Peter Chalk, Australian Foreign and Defence Policy in the Wake of the 1999/2000 East Timor Inter-
2003).
Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 180.
35 S. Neil Macfarlane, Carolin J. Thielking, and Thomas G. Weiss, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone
Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?’’ Third World Quarterly 25, no. 5 (2004), p. 983.
36 Government of China, ‘‘Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China on the United Nations Reforms,’’
June 7, 2005, pp. 10–12; available at www.china-un.org/eng/smhwj/2005/t199101.htm. This is not a new position
for China, which in 2005–6 was the largest contributor of troops to UN peace operations among the P-5.
37 See Yevgeny Primakov, ‘‘UN Process, Not Humanitarian Intervention, Is World’s Best Hope,’’ New Per-
proposal rejected by the P-5. See Anita Inder Singh, ‘‘UN at Sixty: New Strategies a Must for Effectiveness,’’
Tribune: On-Line Edition (Chandigarh, India), September 30, 2005; available at www.tribuneindia.com/2005/
20050930/edit.htm#4.
40 See Statement by Radzi Rahman, Chargé d’Affaires ai, Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations,
Chairman of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, at the Informal Meeting of the Plenary
of the General Assembly Concerning the Draft Outcome Document, June 21, 2005; available at www.un.int/
malaysia/NAM/nam210605.html. I am grateful to the Malaysian Permanent Mission for forwarding this text to me.
41 Statement by Stafford Neil, Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the United Nations and Chairman of the
Group of 77, on the Report of the Secretary-General entitled ‘‘In Larger Freedom,’’ April 6, 2005; available at
www.g77.org/Speeches/040605.htm.
42 World Federalist Movement—Institute for Global Policy, Civil Society Perspectives on the Responsibility to
Protect: Final Report (New York: World Federalist Movement, April 2003), pp. 12–14.
43 I owe this point to Justin Morris.
44 I have explored this point more thoroughly in Bellamy, ‘‘Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse?’’ esp.
pp. 37–40.
Peace and Security Mandate: Submission to the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,’’
undated, paras. 4.1, 4.3, and 5.1–5.2; available at www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/HLPSubmissionR2P_
andsynopsis-en.pdf.
48 Ramesh Thakur, ‘‘A Shared Responsibility for a More Secure World,’’ Global Governance 11, no. 3 (2005),
p. 284.
49 Thakur, ‘‘Iraq and the Responsibility to Protect,’’ pp. 1–16.
50 Byers, ‘‘High Ground Lost.’’
51 Wheeler, ‘‘A Victory for Common Humanity?’’ p. 4.
52 UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, ‘‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsi-
55 UNGA, ‘‘Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization,’’ A/54/1, September 20, 1999.
56 Kofi Annan, ‘‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All,’’ A/59/2005,
March 2005.
57 See Ben Kioko, ‘‘The Right of Interference Under the African Union’s Constitutive Act: From Non-Interference
to Non-Intervention,’’ International Review of the Red Cross 85, no. 6 (2003), p. 852.
58 Declaration of African Heads of State and Governments, Lome, Togo, July 12, 2002; available at www.
africanreview.org/docs/arms/lome.pdf.
and Ramesh Thakur, eds., Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective
Action and International Citizenship (Tokyo: UN University Press, 2000), pp. 245–59.
62 For details on successive UN reports on the deteriorating situation in Darfur in 2005, see Bellamy, ‘‘Responsi-
bility to Protect,’’ pp. 40–50. On the African position, see Williams, ‘‘Military Responses to Mass Killing.’’
63 Evarist Baimu and Kathryn Sturman, ‘‘Amendment to the African Union’s Right to Intervene: A Shift From
Human Security to Regime Security,’’ African Security Review 12, no. 2 (2003), p. 42. It is worth noting that
Libya’s initial proposal for the amendment specifically identified ‘‘internal unrest.’’
64 UNSC 5015th meeting, S/PV.5015, July 30, 2004, especially pp. 10–12.
65 E/CN.4/2005.8, September 27, 2004, paras. 22, 26, and 36.
66 UNSC 5040th meeting, S.PV/5040, September 18, 2004, pp. 2–3.
67 ‘‘Final Communiqué: African Mini-Summit on Darfur,’’ Tripoli, Libya, October 17, 2004, p. 2.
68 See Kristiana Powell, The African Union’s Emerging Peace and Security Regime, monograph no. 119 (Ottawa:
Nations,’’ ext/EX.CL/2(VII), Addis Ababa, March 7–8, 2005, section B(i); available at www.africa-union.org/
News_Events/Calendar_of_%20Events/7th%20extra%20ordinary%20session%20ECL/Ext%20EXCL2%20VII%
20Report.pdf.
70 See Marc Weller, ed., Regional Peacekeeping and International Enforcement: The Liberian Crisis (Cambridge:
73 See Greg Puley, ‘‘The Responsibility to Protect: East, West and Southern African Perspectives on Preventing
and Responding to Humanitarian Crises,’’ Project Ploughshares Working Paper no. 5, September 2005, p. 4;
available at www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/wp055.pdf.
74 ‘‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,’’ sec. V; available at
www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf.
The Mitchell-Gingrich report laid the groundwork for a renewed U.S. engage-
ment with The Responsibility to Protect. The task force spoke directly to the
administration’s two principal concerns: the decoupling of criteria and emphasis
on the host’s responsibility to protect weakened the prescriptive component
of The Responsibility to Protect, while the discussion of unauthorized intervention
promised to permit the United States a degree of flexibility in deciding when
and where to use force.
By the time the draft outcome document reached the incoming U.S. ambassa-
dor to the UN, John Bolton, the criteria guiding decisions to use force had been
decoupled from the commitment to the responsibility to protect, as advised by
Annan (see above). Nevertheless, Bolton argued that it was necessary to redraft
the responsibility to protect statement to take account of two important consid-
erations. First, Bolton argued that while the United States accepted that host
states had the primary responsibility to protect and that the international
75 Task Force on the United Nations, American Interests and UN Reform (Washington, D.C.: United States In-
stitute of Peace, 2005), p. 29.
76 Ibid., p. 32.
TOWARD CONSENSUS
77 Letter from John R. Bolton, Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations to
President Ping, President of the UN General Assembly, August 30, 2005; available at www.un.int/usa/reform-
un-jrb-ltr-protect-8-05.pdf. I am very grateful to Paul D. Williams for providing me with a copy of this letter
and attachments.
78 Ibid. The United States did not seek UN Security Council authorization for its intervention in Afghanistan,
arguing that it was an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. The Security Council nevertheless
passed a resolution welcoming the intervention.
79 The original draft read that the responsibility to protect ‘‘lies first and foremost’’ with the host state, whereas
the revised draft stated that ‘‘each individual state has the responsibility to protect.’’ These comparisons are
based on the Revised Draft Outcome Document of the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly
Submitted by the President of the General Assembly, A/59/HLPM/CRP.1/Rev. 2, August 10, 2005, and the 2005
World Summit outcome document, A/60/L.1, September 15, 2005, paras. 137 and 138, unless otherwise stated.
80 As noted earlier, both China and Russia rejected any modification of the rules governing recourse to force.
81 ‘‘2005 World Summit Outcome,’’ A/60/L.1, September 15, 2005, para. 139.
82 Wheeler, ‘‘A Victory for Common Humanity?’’ p. 116.