Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(mis)apply it in Venezuela
blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2019/03/11/we-need-to-understand-the-responsibility-to-protect-before-we-
misapply-it-in-venezuela/
March 11, 2019
United Nations in 2005, is an important component of a global, collective security system. But
invoking it inaccurately will do little to help the victims that is was designed to protect,
writesAdrian Gallagher (European Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, University of
Leeds).
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addresses the World Summit in 2005 ( UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras, ©United
Nations)
1/4
defined in Article VII of the Rome Statute. As a result, prominent political figures began to
invoke the RtoP. The Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, Luis
Almagro, declared:
“[W]e must act in accordance with public international law – including the UN’s 2005
Responsibility to Protect commitment to prevent genocide – and international criminal law, and
the international norms that protect democracy and our rights and freedoms.”
More recently, the RtoP has resurfaced in the midst of the ongoing battle for legitimacy
inside Venezuela.
In late January 2019, the President of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó declared
himself interim President of Venezuela, a status recognised by 50 countries (including the
United States) but vehemently rejected by Russia as “flagrant interference”.
When Guaidó arranged in late February to try to bring aid donated by the US into
Venezuela via Colombia, Brazil, and the Caribbean, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei
Lavrov denounced the move as a “hypocritical pretext of humanitarian aid” designed to
help pursue regime change.
And shortly after, the former United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a
Democratic and Equitable International Order, Alfred De Zayas, tweeted that:
“The R2P ‘doctrine’ is nothing but a pretext for military aggression which remains prohibited
and a crime under the ICC statute, because the R2P cannot replace the UN Charter and a
pertinent Security Council resolution. But the media still peddles the ‘fake legality’ of R2P.”
Though the RtoP can involve force, any action must be authorised by the UN Security Council ( US Army/Paolo
Bovo, CC BY 2.0)
2/4
This statement is just one of many examples of high-profile political figures
misunderstanding the RtoP. It rests on three assumptions that are simply inaccurate,
thereby creating barriers to understanding how RtoP can be applied to real-world crises
such as the one occurring today in Venezuela.
First, the RtoP does not permit military aggression as defined by the ICC. In fact, it acts as
a barrier to it. Yes, the RtoP does allow states to consider all coercive and non-coercive
measures under Chapters VI, VII, and VIII of the UN Charter when a government is
“manifestly failing” to protect its population from the four crimes. Though this does
include the use of force, any action taken has to be authorised by the UN Security
Council. In other words, any US-led use of force without the consent of the Security
Council cannot be undertaken on the grounds of the RtoP.
Second, the RtoP does not set out to replace the UN Charter. Rather, the RtoP was forged
within the UN system. It is a UN-led response to the problem of mass-atrocity crimes,
and as already noted, it requires UN Security Council authorisation. As such, it is simply
inaccurate to suggest that the RtoP sets out to replace the UN Charter.
Third, the RtoP should not be viewed as having “fake” legal credentials. It is correct to say
that the RtoP did not create any legally binding obligations in international law, but this
does not mean that it is legally void. The RtoP is a political and moral commitment built
on pre-existing international legal agreements like the 1948 UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 1998 Rome Statute, the
latter outlining legal obligations around genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes.
If this is all correct, why do prominent figures speak of the RtoP in such a toxic manner?
The answer, in large part, relates to its use in Libya in 2011.
There, the UN Security Council invoked the RtoP in response to the threat of mass
violence from Colonel Gaddafi’s regime. The subsequent attempt at regime change led
by the US, the UK, and France then created a backlash as many states (including Russia,
China, and South Africa) felt that they had been duped.
The power vacuum and civil war that followed made crimes against humanity the norm
in Libya, which is precisely what the intervention was meant to prevent. This failure in
Libya has cast a long shadow. Notably, the same three countries that expressed
indignation over how RtoP was applied in Libya – Russia, China and South Africa – voted
against the US’s recent proposal of a Security Council Resolution on Venezuela.
In short, what is needed is a Security Council that works as a collective security system to
uphold and enforce the RtoP. What is not needed is the inaccurate invocation of RtoP as
part of a geopolitical game that does little to help those that the principle was
established to protect: namely, victims of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity,
and ethnic cleansing.
Notes:
• The views expressed here are of the authors and do not reflect the position of the
Centre or of the LSE
4/4