Main Article Content
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was unanimously adopted and is articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of General Assembly Resolution A/Res/60/1. On the one hand, R2P has presumed a new name for humanitarian intervention that is still debatable in international law. On the other hand, R2P attempts to connect State’s sovereignty and responsibility to protect human rights. R2P recognizes State’s sovereignty while bestowing States the primary responsibility to protect human rights and allowing the international community to intervene if States fail to fulfill their obligation. Considering the original idea of R2P is to protect human rights, the essential issue that should be addressed is the position of R2P as source of international law. Suppose States should implement the R2P without a prior commitment to a treaty, which sources of international law that can underlie the legal basis for R2P? This article argues that R2P can fulfill the criteria of customary international law based on the notion of ‘Grotian moment,’ which ‘compensates’ R2P from the traditional burden of state practice and opinio juris since R2P is a paradigm-shifting development in which new rules and doctrines of custom emerge with unusual rapidity and acceptance. Further, this article also highlights the importance of responsibility to prevent, which is one of the pillars of R2P, and argues that commitment to prevent is the “heart” of R2P. It is argued that such responsibility is vital in saving States from avoidable conflicts and from the trouble in responding to mass atrocities and rebuilding the affected population.
Keywords: Customary International Law, Grotian Moment, Responsibility to Protect, Responsibility to Prevent, Sources of International Law
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) diadopsi dengan suara bulat dan dicantumkan dalam paragraf 138 dan 139 Resolusi Majelis Umum A/Res/60/1. Di satu sisi, R2P dianggap sebagai nama baru untuk intervensi kemanusiaan yang masih diperdebatkan dalam hukum internasional. Di sisi lain, R2P berupaya untuk menjembatani kedaulatan negara dan tanggung jawab untuk melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). R2P tetap mengakui kedaulatan negara dan memberikan tanggung jawab utama kepada negara untuk melindungi HAM, namun mengizinkan masyarakat internasional untuk mengintervensi jika negara gagal memenuhi kewajibannya. Mengingat ide awal R2P adalah untuk melindungi HAM, maka isu penting yang harus ditelaah adalah posisi R2P sebagai sumber hukum internasional. Misalnya, negara harus mengimplementasikan R2P tanpa komitmen terlebih dahulu terhadap suatu perjanjian internasional, sumber hukum internasional manakah yang dapat mendasari pelaksanaan R2P? Artikel ini berpendapat bahwa R2P dapat memenuhi kriteria hukum kebiasaan internasional berdasarkan konsep ‘Grotian moment', yang 'mengkompensasi' R2P dari beban tradisional state practice dan opinio juris karena R2P merupakan perkembangan yang mengubah paradigma yang mengakibatkan aturan baru dan doktrin kebiasaan muncul dengan laju dan penerimaan yang luar biasa. Lebih lanjut, artikel ini juga menyoroti pentingnya tanggung jawab untuk mencegah, yang merupakan salah satu pilar dari R2P, dan berpendapat bahwa komitmen untuk mencegah adalah esensi dari R2P. Tanggung jawab untuk mencegah sangat penting dalam menjauhkan negara dari konflik yang dapat dihindari dan dari kesulitan dalam merespon krisis kemanusiaan dan membangun kembali penduduk yang terkena dampaknya.
Kata Kunci: Grotian Moment, Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional, Tanggung Jawab untuk Melindungi, Tanggung Jawab untuk Mencegah, Sumber Hukum Internasional
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Annan, Kofi. We the Peoples, New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 2000.
ICISS. The Responsibility to Protect: The Responsibility to Protect Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Ottawa: The International Development Research Centre, 2001.
Lefkowitz, David. “The Source of International Law: Some Philosophical Reflections”. The Philosophy of International Law, edited by Samantha Besson & John Tasioulas, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.187 – 203.
Mendelson, Maurice H. “The Formation of Customary International Law”. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, volume 272. Koninklijke Brill NV, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789041112378_02, pp.155 – 244.
Simma, Bruno & Philip Alston. “The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles”. Australian Yearbook of International Law, vol.12, edited by Philip Alston, et.al, Australian National University, 1989, pp. 82 – 108.
Volk, Joe & Scott Stedjan. “Building Structures for Peace – A Quaker Lobby Offers Strategies for Peacemakers”. Responsibility to Protect the Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century, edited by Richard H. Cooper & Juliette Voïnov Kohler, Palgrave MacMillan, 2009, pp. 199 – 218.
Alexander, Klinton W. "NATO'S intervention in Kosovo: the legal case for violating Yugoslavia's national sovereignty in the absence of Security Council approval". Houston Journal of International Law, volume 22, number 3, 2000. pp.403 – 449. Gale OneFile: LegalTrac. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A62923792/LT?u=crepuq_mcgill&sid=LT&xid=d14ef956. Accessed 10 January 2021.
Baker, Roozbeh B. “Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates”. European Journal of International Law, volume 21, Issue 1, 2010. pp.173 – 204. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq015. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Bellamy, Alex J. & Paul D. Williams. “The new politics of protection? Côte d'Ivoire, Libya and the responsibility to protect”. International Affairs, volume 87, issue 4, 2011. pp.825 – 850. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/riia/v87i4/f_0022933_18802.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2021.
Bellamy, Alex J. “The Responsibility to Protect: Five Years On”. Ethics & International Affairs, vol.24, issue 2, 2010. pp.143 – 169. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Dagi, Dogachan. “The Russian Stand on the Responsibility to Protect: Does Strategic Culture Matter?”. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, vol.7, issue 3, 2020. pp.370 – 386. SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2347797020962667. Accessed 20 January 2021.
Gegout, Catherine & Shogo Suzuki. “China, Responsibility to Protect, and the Case of Syria – From Sovereignty Protection to Pragmatism”. Global Governance, vol.26, 2020. pp.379 – 402. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02603002. Accessed 21 January 2021.
Helfer, Laurence R. & Ingrid B. Wuerth. “Customary International Law: An Instrument Choice Perspective”. Michigan Journal of International Law, vol.37, 2016. pp.563 – 609. MJIL: Michigan Journal of International Law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol37/iss4/1/. Accessed 10 January 2021.
Henry, Etienne. “Alleged Acquiescence of the International Community to Revisionist Claims of International Customary Law (With Special Reference to the Jus Contra Bellum Regime)”. Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 18, issue 2, 2017. pp.1 – 38. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3097867#. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Iancu, Andreea. “The Responsibility to Protect: A Just War Theory Based Analysis”. SEA: Practical Application of Science, vol.2, 2014. pp.341 – 348. https://seaopenresearch.eu/Journals/articles/SPAS_5_47.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2021.
Moses, Jeremy. “A Pacifist Ethos for the Responsibility to Protect: Detaching Prevention from Intervention”. International Politics, vol.56, issue 2, 2019. pp.228 – 242. http://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0138-5. Accessed 22 January 2021.
_____________. “Anarchy, Pacifism and Realism: Building a Path to a Non-Violent International Law”. Critical Studies on Security, vol.6, issue 2, 2017. pp.1 – 16. Taylor & Francis Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1409559. Accessed 21 January 2021.
_____________. “Peace Without Perfection: The Intersections of Realist and Pacifist Thought”. Cooperation and Conflict, vol 53, issue 1, 2017. pp.1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1409559. Accessed 22 January 2021.
Payandeh, Mehrdad. “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility? The Concept of the Responsibility To Protect Within the Process of International Lawmaking”. Yale Journal of International Law, vol.35, 2010. pp.470 – 516. Yale Journal of International Law. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol35/iss2/5/. Accessed 10 January 2021.
Pease, Kelly Kate & David P. Forsythe. “Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, and World Politics”. Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 15, Issue 2, 1993. pp.290 – 314. Gale OneFile: LegalTrac. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A13917979/LT?u=crepuq_mcgill&sid=LT&xid=d70caf5e. Accessed 10 January 2021.
Posner, Eric A. & Jack L. Goldsmith. “A Theory of Customary International Law”. University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 66, issue 4, 1999. pp.1113 – 1178. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2767&context=journal_articles. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Prost, Mario. “Hierarchy and the Sources of International Law: A Critique”. Houston Journal of International Law, vol. 39, issue 2, 2017. pp.285 – 330. Gale OneFile: LegalTrac. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A513193936/LT?u=crepuq_mcgill&sid=LT&xid=88812092. Accessed 10 January 2021.
Robbins, Melissa. “Powerful States, Customary Law and the Erosion of Human Rights Through Regional Enforcement”. California Western International Law Journal, vol. 35, issue 2, 2005. pp.275 – 302. California Western School of Law. https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwilj/vol35/iss2/5/. 11 January 2021.
Scharf, Michael P. “Accelerated Formation of Customary International Law”. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol.20, issue 2, 2014. pp.305 – 342. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2479410. Accessed 9 January 2021.
_______________. “Seizing the Grotian Moment: Accelerated Formation of Customary International Law in Times of Fundamental Change”. Cornell International Law Journal, vol.43, 2010. pp.439 – 469. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588283. Accessed 8 January 2021.
Sterio, Milena. “A Grotian Moment: Changes in the Legal Theory of Statehood”. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, vol.39, issue 2, 2011. pp.209 – 238. Gale OneFile: LegalTrac. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A253224328/LT?u=crepuq_mcgill&sid=LT&xid=48ff7acc. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Tunkin, Grigory. “Is General International Law Customary Law Only?”. European Journal of International Law, vol.4, 1993. pp.534 – 541. http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/4/1/1216.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2021.
Weiss, Thomas G., et.al. “The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?”. Third World Quarterly, vol.25, issue 5, 2004. pp.977 – 992. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000232063. Accessed 9 January 2021.
Yotova, Rumiana. “Challenges in the Identification of the “General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations”: The Approach of the International Court”. Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law, vol.3, issue 1, 2017. pp.269 – 323. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3020190. Accessed 8 January 2021.
European External Action Service. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe, Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Brussel: European External Action Service, 2016.
Foreign Affairs Committee. “Global Britain: The Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention: Government response to the Committee’s Twelfth Report”. 19 November 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1719/171902.htm. Accessed 19 January 2021.
Foreign Affairs Department of France. “France Humanitarian Strategy”. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Strategie_Humanitaire_ANGlais_2012_cle89af5f-1.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2021.
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. “Reinforcing the Responsibility to Protect in the Central African Republic”. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2015-march-car-brief.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2021.
Hodali, Augustin. “The Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect Norms by the African Standby Force in Sub-Saharan African”. A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree master of military art and science. University of Amsterdam, 2017.
Human Rights Watch. “Syria Events of 2017”. www.hrw.org/worldreport/2018/country-chapters/Syria. Accessed 21 January 2021.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. “Address by Mr. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey at the 67th United Nations General Assembly, 28 September 2012, New York”. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/address-by-mr_-ahmet-davutoglu_-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-turkey-at-the-67th-united-nations-general-assembly_-28-september.en.mfa. Accessed 17 January 2021.
Norwegian Permanent Mission to the United States in New York. “GA: The Responsibility to Protect”. Norwegian Permanent Mission to the United States in New York, https://www.norway.no/en/missions/UN/statements/general-assembly-plenary/2019/ga-the-responsibility-to-protect/. Accessed 17 January 2021.
Ralph, Jason. “Mainstreaming the Responsibility to Protect in UK Strategy – Improving the Government’s Response to the Threat of Mass Atrocity”. https://una.org.uk/sites/default/files/UNA-UK%20Policy%20briefing%202%20-%20Professor%20Jason%20Ralph%20-%20Mainstreaming%20R2P%20in%20UK%20strategy.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2021.
Sekulic, Aleksandar. “Responsibility to Protect and Its Effect on Humanitarian Intervention: Libya, Cote d’Ivore, and Syria”. A thesis presented for the degree MA in human rights Central European University. Central European University, 2013.
Steenbrink, Laura. “Responsibility to Protect At Stake: R2P in Relation to the US, NATO, and the EU: The Case of Syria”. A thesis presented for the degree MA International Relations in Historical Perspective Utrecht University. Utrecht University, 2017.
Turkey’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations. “Address by Mr. Fazlı Çorman Charge D'Affaires a.i. and Deputy Representative of Turkey to the UN, "Resposibility to Project" UN General Assembly, 63rd Session”. Turkey’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, 24 July 2009, http://turkuissue dt.mfa.gov.tr/Mission/ShowSpeech/1183. Accessed 18 January 2021.
United Nations. “Secretary-General Reflects on 'Intervention' in Thirty-Fifth Annual Ditchley Foundation Lecture”. United Nations, 26 June 1998, https://www.un.org/press/en/1998/19980626.sgsm6613.html. Accessed 16 January 2021.
United States of America Mission in Geneva. “The U.S. Strongly Supports the Concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)”. United States of America Mission in Geneva, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/06/19/the-u-s-strong-supporter-of-the-concept-of-responsibility-to-protect-r2p/. Accessed 20 January 2021.
United States of America Mission to the United Nations. “Remarks at a UN General Assembly Debate on Responsibility to Protect”. United States Mission to the United Nations, https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-a-un-general-assembly-debate-on-responsibility-to-protect/. Accessed 23 January 2021.
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. “2020 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018”. U.S. Department of State, 7 August 2020, https://www.state.gov/2020-Report-to-Congress-Pursuant-to-Section-5-of-the-Elie-Wiesel-Genocide-and-Atrocities-Prevention-Act-of-2018. Accessed 22 January 2021.
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), . I.C.J. Reports of Judgments: Advisory Opinions and Orders of 27 June 1986.
Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), . I.C.J. Reports Of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of 15 June 1962.
Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Ministry of Defense. “UK Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32950/ukstrategy-protect-cvilians-arms-conflict.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2021.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia. “Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2018-19”. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/annual-reports/Pages/department-of-foreign-affairs-and-trade-annual-report-2018-19. Accessed 16 January 2021.
Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, 115th Congress of the United States of America Public Law 441.
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. “Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal. Accessed 8 January 2021.
International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of This Crime, GA Res. UN Doc. A/Res/69/323 (2015).
International Law Commission. “Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law With Commentaries”. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Ministry of Defence of France. “French White Paper on Defense and National Security”. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/215253/2394121/White%20paper%20on%20defense%20%202013.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2021.
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Germany/Denmark/Netherlands), . .IC.J. Report of Judgments of 20 February 1969.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Opportunities for All: Human Rights in Norway’s Foreign Policy and Development Cooperation”. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/261f255d028b42cab91ad099ee3f99fc/en-gb/pdfs/stm201420150010000engpdfs.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2021.
Resolution 1894 (2009), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/1894 (2009).
Resolution 1970 (2011), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/1970 (2011).
Resolution 1973 (2011), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/1973 (2011).
Resolution 1975 (2011), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/1975 (2011).
Resolution 2031 (2011), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2031 (2011).
Resolution 2085 (2012), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2085 (2012).
Resolution 2093 (2013), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2093 (2013).
Resolution 2117 (2013), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2117 (2013).
Resolution 2134 (2014), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2134 (2014).
Resolution 2150 (2014), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2150 (2014).
Resolution 2155 (2014), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2155 (2014).
Resolution 2196 (2015), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2196 (2015).
Resolution 2211 (2015), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2211 (2015).
Resolution 2217 (2015), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2217 (2015).
Resolution 2419 (2018), SC Res UN Doc. S/Res/2419 (2018).
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 14 September 2009, GA Res. UN Doc. A/Res/63/308 (2009).
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res. UN Doc A/Res/60/1 (2005).
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade of Australia. “Australia's Involvement in Peacekeeping Operations”. Parliament of Australia, 26 August 2008, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/peacekeeping/report/index. Accessed 16 January 2021.
The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), . P.C.I.J.: Judgment No.9 of 7 September 1927.
United States of America. “National Security Strategy”. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2021.