No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
How can a ‘Responsible’ European Union Contribute to the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 June 2019
Abstract
In 2013, in light of the mass atrocity cases in Libya and Syria, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament recommended ‘to reconfirm the EU’s commitment to R2P [Responsibility to Protect] by adopting an interinstitutional “Consensus on R2P”’. Despite such reaffirmation, the Union’s role in implementing R2P remains an open-ended question. To date, the EU’s contribution to R2P has rarely been studied. In our attempt to contribute to the literature, approaching the issue from an ethical perspective, we aim to answer the following questions: what are the existing capacities of the EU in contributing to R2P; and what can the EU do to be a more responsible actor in the future? After identifying the existing capacities of the Union, we analyse what the EU can do to make the international community more responsible in the future given that we have already left behind the first decade of the norm, which was characterized by inconsistent implementation. Finally, we conclude that the Union holds a genuine potential for further development and a consistent implementation of the norm mainly by utilizing its non-military tools.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © Academia Europaea 2019
References
References and Notes
UNMCPR (September 2007) Secretary-General, in Address to General Assembly, Lays Out Vision of Stronger, More Flexible, Efficient, Accountable United Nations, SG/SM/11182, p. 25.Google Scholar
The phrase ‘atrocity crimes’ is used to refer to the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, which set the current scope of R2P under paragraphs 138 and 139 of WSOD.Google Scholar
For exceptions see, De Baere, G. (2012) Some Reflections on the EU and the Responsibility to Protect. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working Paper 79; De Franco, C., Meyer, C. and Smith, K.E. (2015) ‘Living by example?’ The European Union and the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), pp. 1–16; Knudsen, T.B. (2013) The Responsibility to Protect: European contributions in a changing world order. In Jorgensen, K.E. and Laaitkainen, K.V. (Eds), Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions (New York: Routledge), pp. 157–171; Wouters, J. and De Man, P. (2013) The Responsibility to Protect and regional organisations: The example of the European Union. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Working Paper 101, pp. 4–27.Google Scholar
Szigeti, A. (2006) The problem of institutional responsibility and the EU. In H. Mayer and H. Vogt (Eds), A Responsible Europe? (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNGA–SC (11 July 2014) Fulfilling our collective responsibility: International assistance and the Responsibility to Protect. Report of the Secretary-General, A/68/947–S/2014/449, p. 20.Google Scholar
After WSOD, in R2P-related situations the veto was cast seven times: once on Myanmar and Zimbabwe, twice on Gaza, and three times on Syria.Google Scholar
Hehir, A. (2012) The Responsibility to Protect: Rhetoric, Reality and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (Basingstoke: Palgrave), p. 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNGA (14 July 2010) Early warning, assessment and the Responsibility to Protect. A/64/864, p. 5.Google Scholar
In its report, the ICISS referred to the possibility of ‘action within area of jurisdiction by regional or sub-regional organizations under Chapter VIII of the Charter’ (ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect: The Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: International Development Research Center), p. xiii). Later, under Paragraph 139 of WSOD, regional organizations were considered as a potential party for implementation under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.Google Scholar
UNGA–UNSC (27 June 2011) The role of regional and subregional arrangements in implementing the Responsibility to Protect. A/65/877–S/2011/393, p. 3.Google Scholar
As Gözen Ercan suggests ‘[a]rguably, in both cases the keen interest of regional actors/organisations played a vital role in the prompt reaction to the crises. On the other hand, as the experiences of Zimbabwe (2008) and Nigeria (2010) demonstrate, lack of regional support is likely to impact the implementation of the collective responsibility to protect negatively’ (Gözen Ercan (2016) Debating the Future of the Responsibility to Protect: The Evolution of a Moral Norm (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 123).Google Scholar
Ralph, J. and Souter, J. (2015) A special responsibility to protect: The UK, Australia and the rise of Islamic State. International Affairs, 91, pp. 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
We focus on the special responsibility of the EU rather than the general responsibility of states due to being a part of the international community.Google Scholar
We do not go into the ‘Ethical Power Europe’ debate here as it is a classification of what the EU should do rather than what kind of existing capacity it has.Google Scholar
Duchêne, F. (1973) The European Community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In Kohnstamm, M. and Hager, W. (Eds), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community (London: Macmillan), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Manners, I. (2002) Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), pp. 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toje, A. (2011) The European Union as a small power. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(1), pp. 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union External Action (2015) Global Strategy to steer EU external action in an increasingly connected, contested and complex world.Google Scholar
European Commission (March 2014) Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, preventing conflict around the world. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/instrument_contributing_to_stability_and_peace_en.htm (accessed 12 October 2017).Google Scholar
Lavallée, C. (2013) From the rapid reaction mechanism to the instrument for stability: The empowerment of the European Commission in crisis response and conflict prevention. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(3), p. 378.Google Scholar
European Commission (n.d.) Funding for humanitarian aid. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding-evaluations/funding-humanitarian-aid_en (accessed 21 October 2017).Google Scholar
Damro, C. (2012) Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), pp. 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S., Lande, S. and Matanda, D. (2013) Why economic partnership agreements undermine Africa’s regional integration. Wilson Center and Manchester Trade Collaboration Briefing.Google Scholar
Siles-Brügge, G. (2014) EU Trade and development policy beyond the ACP: Subordinating developmental to commercial imperatives in the reform of GSP. Contemporary Politics, 20(1), pp. 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, S. and Nicolaidis, K. (2006) The European Union as a conflicted trade power. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), pp. 906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepos, A. (2013) Imperial power Europe? The EU’s relations with the ACP countries. Journal of Political Power, 6(2), pp. 261–287.Google Scholar
Weissman, Cf. F. (2010) Not in our name: Why MSF does not support the ‘Responsibility to Protect’. Criminal Justice Ethics, 29(2), pp. 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union External Action. Available at http://eeas.europa.eu/index_en.htm (accessed 17 May 2015).Google Scholar
Gottwald, M. (2010) Humanizing security: The EU’s Responsibility to Protect in the Libyan crisis. FIIA Working Paper, 75.Google Scholar
Andersson, J.J (February 2015) If not now, when? The Nordic EU battlegroup. European Union Institute for Security Studies, 11.Google Scholar
The European Council adopted the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) of 25 EU Member States who want to cooperate closely in the area of security and defence on 11 December 2017. Part of the common objectives decided by the participating states was to increase defence budgets to be able to achieve the common objectives of the PESCO decision. European Council (11 December 2017) Defence cooperation: Council establishes Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), with 25 member states participating. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases2017/12/11/defence-cooperation-pesco-25-member-states-participating (accessed 23 January 2018).Google Scholar
Major, C., Mölling, C. and Vorrath, J. (2015) Conflict management: Germany’s light-footprint approach is not enough. Global Affairs, 1(2), p. 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babaud, S. and Ndung’u, J. (2012) Early warning and conflict prevention by the EU: Learning lessons from the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya. Saferworld, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
European Union Delegation to the United Nations (2005) EU Council Conclusions – UN World Summit. Available at http://eu-un.europa.eu/eu-council-conclusions-%C2%96-un-world-summit (accessed 20 October 2017).Google Scholar
European Union Delegation to the United Nations (2008) EU Priorities for the 63rd UN General Assembly. Available at http://eu-un.europa.eu/eu-priorities-for-the-63rd-un-general-assembly (accessed 20 October 2017).Google Scholar
Some highlights from the EU position presented in the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute are as follows: ‘The EU stands in the strong tradition of being a staunch supporter of the Court. […] Justice, the rule of law and the fight against impunity are the pillars of sustainable peace’. Furthermore, the ‘EU will continue to support the International Criminal Court both politically and diplomatically, as well as logistically and financially. In particular, the EU will keep on promoting the independence of the Court and helping to ensure its effective and efficient functioning’ (European Union Delegation to the United Nations (2011) EU Statement – Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court. Available at http://eu-un.europa.eu/eu-statement-assembly-of-states-parties-to-the-rome-statute-of-international-criminal-court (accessed 12 October 2017).Google Scholar
While it is arguable to what extent it has affected Russia’s foreign policy, the EU applied sanctions on and halted bilateral talks with Russia due to its ‘actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine and its illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol’. European Union External Action (2015) EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine crisis – Frequently asked questions. Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/14876_en (accessed 12 February 2017).Google Scholar
UNA–UK (2015) UN Security Council and the responsibility to protect: Voluntary restraint of the veto in situations of mass atrocity. Available at https://www.una.org.uk/sites/default/files/Briefing%20-%20Veto%20code%20of%20conduct.pdf (accessed 29 May 2016).Google Scholar
‘[T]he EU and/or its Member States, as appropriate, will […] continue to promote the reform of the UN System and of its bodies and organs, including the comprehensive reform of the Security Council […], with the aim to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, accountability and representativeness of the system’. European Union Delegation to the United Nations (2014) Priorities for the UN General Assembly, 69th General Assembly. Available at http://eu-un.europa.eu/eu-priorities-for-the-un-general-assembly-69th-general-assembly (accessed 12 June 2017).Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. and Keohane, R.O. (Spring 2011) Precommitment regimes for intervention: Supplementing the Security Council. Ethics and International Affairs, 25(1), p. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hehir, A. and Murray, R. (2013) Libya: The Responsibility to Protect and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (Basingstoke: Palgrave), p. 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
It is important to note that in the UNSC resolutions to date that are cited as evidence of R2P in action, the primary reference has been to the responsibility of national authorities rather than that of the international community.Google Scholar
Brockmeier, S., Kurtz, G. and Junk, J. (2014) Emerging norm and rhetorical tool: Europe and a responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development, 14(4), p. 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar