July 2008

OI Policy Compendium Note on the Responsibility to Protect

Overview: Oxfam International’s position on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Oxfam International (OI) warmly welcomed the agreement at the UN World Summit in 2005 that
all governments had the Responsibility to Protect civilian populations from genocide, ethnic
cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now it is vitally urgent that all governments
uphold this agreement in practical policies that help to prevent and halt mass atrocities, and
rebuild societies shattered by conflict to prevent mass atrocities every being committed again.

This is primarily the responsibility of individual states. Where they need support or fail, the
international community shares that responsibilility. It is crucial that governments and the
international community uphold their Responsibility to Protect through:

• Taking appropriate action to protect civilians in the world’s current conflicts where they are
threatened by genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Successful action to prevent and stop mass atrocities is the single most important way to
build up the norm that governments will consistently do so in future.
• Building the capacity to uphold that Responsibility to Protect in governments, regional
organisations and international institutions, primarily through civilian instruments, and
including substantially greater support from rich countries for that capacity in Southern
governments and regional organisations.
• Demonstrating in their actions and statements that R2P is about preventing as much as
ending mass atrocities, and helping to rebuild post-conflict societies to prevent further
atrocities in the future. It is primarily about supporting national governments to do this. It
requires far greater use of new and existing tools for conflict prevention. It is not primarily
about external military action.

1. Background

The Responsibility to Protect was unanimously endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the 2005
UN World Summit.1 It confirmed that individual states have the primary Responsibly to Protect their
own populations against genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It
agreed that ‘the international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help states to
exercise this responsibility’, and that when a state is not willing or able to do so, that the international
community has the responsibility to act. This agreement was firmly built upon governments’ existing
responsibilities under the Universal Declaration of Universal Human Rights, and the 1949 Geneva
Conventions. All High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions already had the obligation to
help ensure respect for the Conventions around the world.

Conceptually, the Responsibility to Protect is a vital framework to focus on the rights of all people, and
the responsibilities of all states and, secondly, the international community. It was developed as a
response to the catastrophic failure of the international community to help prevent genocide and other
mass atrocities in Rwanda and elsewhere in the 1990s. It was first proposed in 2001 by an
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), led by Algerian and
2
Australian states-people, and supported by Canada. Its report was not a charter to intervene, but a
charter of civilians’ rights, restating by and large the responsibilities already held by states. It set

1
UN General Assembly Resolution (2005), A/RES/60/1 ‘Final Document of the World Summit 2005’,
(paragraphs 138-139), available at: www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/60/1 (accessed
July 2 2008)
2
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), The Responsibility to
Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
1
 July 2008

military action as a small and exceptional tool in limited circumstances. It placed far greater emphasis
on peaceful means to: 1) prevent mass atrocities; 2) react to them and stop them; and 3) help rebuild
societies afterwards so that mass atrocities would never occur again.

The original ICISS report represented the same solidarity with those suffering in conflicts that the
African Union (AU) set out in 2000 when it proclaimed its ‘non-indifference’ to genocide and other
mass atrocities. In 2005, African governments were the most important group proposing R2P as a
commitment of solidarity with those suffering from those crimes in Africa and elsewhere.

Since 2005, most governments have been slow to turn the World Summit agreement into practical
changes of policy to prevent and stop mass atrocities, and rebuild post-conflict societies afterwards.
Some positive steps have been taken, including the appointment of UN Special Advisers for the
Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Conflict Prevention and Resolution, and the
Responsibility to Protect; and in 2008 the creation of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to
3 4
Protect and steps towards the creation of an NGO Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. But
the overriding need remains to secure greater commitment from all governments to the norm and to
translate the World Summit’s words into more effective action.

2. Oxfam International’s position on the Responsibility to Protect

Governments have the responsibility to act not only to halt crimes that are already taking place, but
also to prevent them, and help rebuild societies to prevent future atrocities. They should use
diplomatic, economic, legal and political strategies. Upholding R2P sometimes requires UN-mandated
peace support operations, and one of governments’ greatest failures in upholding R2P is to properly
resource UN and UN-mandated (including African Union) peace support operations. Upholding R2P
will not require any other form of military action without the consent of the relevant national
government, except in extremely rare circumstances.

To turn R2P from words into action, governments should:

• Act effectively to prevent and halt atrocities
• Build the capacity to act, and support national governments and regional organisations to do
so, focusing predominantly on civilian capacities
• Make clear, in their actions and statements, that R2P is about preventing and, if that fails,
acting to stop atrocities through a range of peaceful actions, and supporting national
governments to do so. More generous support for UN and UN-mandated peace support
operations is part of the solution, but any other form of military action will be a very
exceptional last resort.

2.1. Preventing mass atrocities now

R2P represents an important addition to a broad range of tools that all actors – from the UN,
Governments, international and national civil society and down to individuals – have at their disposal
and must apply to ensure security, respect for human rights, and the protection of civilians from
violence, deprivation and coercion. If appropriately used, R2P can contribute to increasing effective
action to protect civilians from the worst abuses, encouraging governments to take the necessary and
timely steps to prevent and respond to all those cases where civilians are threatened by the crimes
listed by the UN World Summit.

Successful action to protect civilians – carried out first and foremost by national governments, with the
support of the international community – is the single most important thing to build up the norm that
governments will consistently uphold their R2P in the future. (Please see www.oxfam.org for Oxfam
International’s latest briefing notes on protecting civilians in different current crises.)

Military action is a very small part of the overall ‘tool kit’ of policies to uphold R2P. Nevertheless, the
inevitable controversy over military action means that it is essential to set out clear principles of when
non-consensual force should and should not be authorised to prevent mass atrocities, a last resort
only to be used when it can meet all of the 5 principle Kofi Annan proposed to the UN Security

3
See: www.globalcentrer2p.org. Oxfam International participates on the Advisory Board of the Global
Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.
4
See: www.responsibilitytoprotect.org
2
 July 2008

Council in 2005: just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means, and the reasonable
prospect of success: that the consequences of military action will be better than inaction.

UN Security Council permanent members should agree to renounce the use of their vetoes in the
exceptional cases when those principles could be met to avoid unacceptable delays or obstacles in
authorising action. If they do not, they are likely to hear increased calls, like those made by the ICISS
to consider alternative means, such the UN General Assembly deciding on such action based on the
“Uniting for Peace” resolution of 1950; or the Security Council ex post facto authorising action by
regional organizations (rather than the prior authorisation required by Article 53 of the UN Charter).

Though it seems politically unrealistic to expect the Security Council or General Assembly to agree on
principles for the use of force in the near future, Kofi Annan’s 2005 proposition remains eminently
sensible:

The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority but to
make it work better. When considering whether to authorize or endorse the use of military
force, the Council should come to a common view on how to weigh the seriousness of the
threat; the proper purpose of the proposed military action; whether means short of the
use of force might plausibly succeed in stopping the threat; whether the military option is
proportional to the threat at hand; and whether there is a reasonable chance of success.
By undertaking to make the case for military action in this way, the Council would add
transparency to its deliberations and make its decisions more likely to be respected, by
both Governments and world public opinion. I therefore recommend that the Security
Council adopt a resolution setting out these principles and expressing its intention to be
guided by them when deciding whether to authorize or mandate the use of force.5

2.2 Emphasising prevention and support

Far more than military action, upholding R2P requires governments, and the international community
as a whole, to vigorously use new and existing instruments to prevent atrocities from occurring: early
warning systems, mediation, economic sanctions, observer missions, and political pressure to comply
with international human rights and humanitarian law, and promote the peaceful resolution of
disputes. The ICISS report provided a summary of action to prevent mass atrocities, which is still
valid. Governments can help prevent atrocities by:
… ensuring fair treatment and fair opportunities for all citizens... Efforts to ensure
accountability and good governance, protect human rights, promote social and economic
development and ensure a fair distribution of resources point toward the necessary
means…Moreover, for prevention to succeed, strong support from the international
community is often needed, and in many cases may be indispensable. Such support may
take many forms. It may come in the form of development assistance and other efforts to
help address the root cause of potential conflict; or efforts to provide support for local
initiatives to advance good governance, human rights, or the rule of law; or good offices
missions, mediation efforts and other efforts to promote dialogue or reconciliation. In
some cases international support for prevention efforts may take the form of
inducements; in others, it may involve a willingness to apply tough and perhaps even
punitive measures.
It is also impossible to prevent mass atrocites without curbing the flow of arms and ammuntion to
those who commit them. Governments should agree and enforce legally-binding agreements at
national, regional and global levels to prevent irresponsible arms transfers where they are likely to be
used for gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of International
Humanitarian Law or undermine sustainable development.

2.3 Building capacity to do more in the future

In some cases, the only thing stopping governments protecting civilians is their will to do so. Many
governments, regional organisations and the UN have a range of policy tools at their disposal, which

5
Annan, K (2005), ‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All’,
Report of the UN Secretary-General, Para 126, http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/chap3.htm
(accessed 2 May 2008).
3
 July 2008

are often simply not used. Nevertheless, one of the biggest challenges is to increase the capacity of
Southern governments and regional organisations. In particular, it is essential to:

• Increase diplomatic capacities to negotiate and mediate in those situations where violence
can be stopped by effective early diplomatic intervention.
• Have a repertoire of appropriate sanctions measures, with an effective mechanism ready to
put in place immediately to monitor their application and effectiveness.
• Build a full range of civilian capabilities with the capacity to be immediately deployed.

It is also vital to train military forces trained to protect civilians. Governments, regional organisations
and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations need a military doctrine that includes the
protection of civilians, and detailed guidelines of how to deliver it. Beyond that, governments must
urgently fill the gap between the demands upon UN peacekeeping and its resources available,
including with more human and material resources from the most militarily capable governments. For
regional organisations, and particularly the African Union, the development of their capacity continues
to be hindered by unreliable funding from rich countries. The UN Security Council and influential
Member States in the budgeting process of the General Assembly, in particular, should ensure a
reliable means of funding the AU and any other regional organisations that conduct operations the
Council authorises.

3. Recommendations

Please see Oxfam International’s report For a Safer Tomorrow, to be published in September 2008,
for full recommendations. These include:

National governments
• Give the protection of civilians the highest priority in every military and domestic security
strategy, with zero tolerance of abuse (including sexual abuse) by security forces.
• Incorporate the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement into national legislation, and
vigorously implement them.
Regional organisations
• Develop the AU and other organisations’ capacity and will to use mediation and diplomacy,
sanctions targeted on political and military leaders, as well as incentives, legal instruments
and, in exceptional cases, military force to protect civilians.
• Provide increased, reliable, and predictable international funding to support regional
organisations, including the UN Security Council mandating assessed contributions for UN-
authorised but regionally operated peacekeeping missions (or an alternative arrangement that
guarantees full and reliable funding).
UN Security Council
For the UN Security Council, to:
• Demonstrate a greater willingness to protect civilians in new and neglected crises, with the
timely imposition of sanctions targeted on political and military leaders – asset bans, travel
bans etc. – to prevent and end war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and to
enforce co-operation with the International Criminal Court
• Ensure the continued improvement of UN and other peacekeeping operations to proactively
protect civilians, including from sexual violence. This would include building the UN’s doctrine
of civilian protection into peacekeeping training modules, with a detailed breakdown of the
specific actions to be taken and benchmarks and timelines for improvement
• Strengthen its legitimacy as the sole body entitled to authorize military action by agreeing
clear principles to guide its future decisions to authorise the use of force – with those
proposed by Kofi Annan providing a good basis.
For permanent members of the Security Council, to:
• Renounce the use of their veto in situations of actual or incipient war crimes, genocide, ethnic
cleansing or crimes against humanity.
Published by Oxfam International July 2008
Published by Oxfam GB for Oxfam International under ISBN 978-1-84814-584-9
4