Response to large-scale atrocities

humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect

Saulius Katuoka, Agne Cepinskyte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The United Nations has shown recurrent inability to respond to international threats caused by severe human rights violations and thus failed to perform one of its main function—preservation of international peace and security in the world. This evidenced gaps in the United Nations, caused mainly by the veto right in the voting system within the Security Council and limited powers of the General Assembly. The international community gave a twofold answer to this problem: radical humanitarian intervention and the recent concept of the responsibility to protect. The main problem with regard to humanitarian intervention is its legality—its compliance with the prohibition of the use of force. The responsibility to protect does not clash with the prohibition of the use of force, but its legal implications are rather vague— being intensively discussed in the international forum, the responsibility to protect has not yet appeared in any legally binding international document. This article discusses the legal significance of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, and aims to determine how they affect, if at all, the regulation of the use of force in the international relations, as well as how they respond to the issue of large scale atrocities in the world.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)157–175
JournalJurisprudencija: mokslo darbai
Volume121
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

humanitarian intervention
prohibition of the use of force
responsibility
UNO
human rights violation
international relations
voting
peace
threat
regulation
community

Keywords

  • Humanitarian intervention
  • Human Rights
  • The United Nations

Cite this

Response to large-scale atrocities : humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. / Katuoka, Saulius; Cepinskyte, Agne.

In: Jurisprudencija: mokslo darbai, Vol. 121, No. 3, 2010, p. 157–175.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{64e2ba17ba444f568e4617be9f9fafb9,
title = "Response to large-scale atrocities: humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect",
abstract = "The United Nations has shown recurrent inability to respond to international threats caused by severe human rights violations and thus failed to perform one of its main function—preservation of international peace and security in the world. This evidenced gaps in the United Nations, caused mainly by the veto right in the voting system within the Security Council and limited powers of the General Assembly. The international community gave a twofold answer to this problem: radical humanitarian intervention and the recent concept of the responsibility to protect. The main problem with regard to humanitarian intervention is its legality—its compliance with the prohibition of the use of force. The responsibility to protect does not clash with the prohibition of the use of force, but its legal implications are rather vague— being intensively discussed in the international forum, the responsibility to protect has not yet appeared in any legally binding international document. This article discusses the legal significance of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, and aims to determine how they affect, if at all, the regulation of the use of force in the international relations, as well as how they respond to the issue of large scale atrocities in the world.",
keywords = "Humanitarian intervention , Human Rights , The United Nations",
author = "Saulius Katuoka and Agne Cepinskyte",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "121",
pages = "157–175",
journal = "Jurisprudencija: mokslo darbai",
issn = "1392-6195",
publisher = "Mykolas Romeris University",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to large-scale atrocities

T2 - humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect

AU - Katuoka, Saulius

AU - Cepinskyte, Agne

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The United Nations has shown recurrent inability to respond to international threats caused by severe human rights violations and thus failed to perform one of its main function—preservation of international peace and security in the world. This evidenced gaps in the United Nations, caused mainly by the veto right in the voting system within the Security Council and limited powers of the General Assembly. The international community gave a twofold answer to this problem: radical humanitarian intervention and the recent concept of the responsibility to protect. The main problem with regard to humanitarian intervention is its legality—its compliance with the prohibition of the use of force. The responsibility to protect does not clash with the prohibition of the use of force, but its legal implications are rather vague— being intensively discussed in the international forum, the responsibility to protect has not yet appeared in any legally binding international document. This article discusses the legal significance of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, and aims to determine how they affect, if at all, the regulation of the use of force in the international relations, as well as how they respond to the issue of large scale atrocities in the world.

AB - The United Nations has shown recurrent inability to respond to international threats caused by severe human rights violations and thus failed to perform one of its main function—preservation of international peace and security in the world. This evidenced gaps in the United Nations, caused mainly by the veto right in the voting system within the Security Council and limited powers of the General Assembly. The international community gave a twofold answer to this problem: radical humanitarian intervention and the recent concept of the responsibility to protect. The main problem with regard to humanitarian intervention is its legality—its compliance with the prohibition of the use of force. The responsibility to protect does not clash with the prohibition of the use of force, but its legal implications are rather vague— being intensively discussed in the international forum, the responsibility to protect has not yet appeared in any legally binding international document. This article discusses the legal significance of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, and aims to determine how they affect, if at all, the regulation of the use of force in the international relations, as well as how they respond to the issue of large scale atrocities in the world.

KW - Humanitarian intervention

KW - Human Rights

KW - The United Nations

M3 - Article

VL - 121

SP - 157

EP - 175

JO - Jurisprudencija: mokslo darbai

JF - Jurisprudencija: mokslo darbai

SN - 1392-6195

IS - 3

ER -