HUMAN SECURITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

1. HUMAN SECURITY ANDRESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Dr. Vesselin Popovski Senior Academic Programme Officer United Nations University, Tokyo popovski@unu.edu UN University, Tokyo

2. Human Security puts Human Being in the center

3. Responsibility to protect

4. Protection of civilians in armed conflict

5. CHANGING NATURE OF WAR: VULNERABILITY OF CIVILIANS Mary Kaldor, ‘New and Old Wars’ (2006) Traditional War: Uniformed state-controlled armies: rules, stable patterns of practice ‘New War’: Weak governments v. ill-trained rebels, using child soldiers, illegal weapons and tactics: targeting civilians through starvation, rapes, ethnic cleansing Traditional conflict resolution techniques (Chapter VI, peacekeeping) are less effective to ‘new wars’ and to POC Civilians remain vulnerable (Ditchley, 2013) UN University, Tokyo

6. Traditional Threats: Aggression Civil Wars Weapons Proliferation Human Rights Abuses Terrorism 3000 victims on 9/11 ‘New’ Threats: Poverty, malnutrition, population growth Climate Change Natural Disasters Organized Crime, Corruption Infectious Diseases 3000 victims on 9/11 Threats to peace and Security

7. CANADIAN – JAPANESE APPROACH Canadian approach Victims from civil wars, displacement Reduce conflicts and mass atrocities Sovereignty as responsibility; R2P HS reports (A. Mack) Reactive, crisis management Japanese approach Victims of economic and social inequality Address root causes, structural violence Empowerment of communities UNDP reports Preventive, avoid next disaster UN University, Tokyo

8. Traditional v Human Security

9. Security of Whom?Security from what? “Security of people, not just territory. Security of individuals, not just nations. Security through development, not through arms. Security of all people everywhere - in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets, in their communities, in their environment.” (Ul Haq 1995) Security of all people from all possible threats • Inequality in economic opportunities, in access to education, science, technology • Environmental degradation • Forceful migration • Drugs trafficking and human trafficking • Preventable Diseases • Discrimination

10. Security for Whom? and from What? (Roland Paris 2001)

11. Human Security: Comprehensive and Inter-Disciplinary Concept Comprehensive • holistic umbrella concept, pays attention to diversity and complex nature of security threats to individuals; • integrated solution for multifaceted issues (Hampson, 2004) • helps analysts to take into account variety of factors in a specific situation of insecurity when assessing relationships between threats and vulnerabilities (Hitomi Kubo 2010) Interdisciplinary • Facilitate dialogue between disciplines and integrated analysis to decipher complex relations (Owen 2004) • powerful analytical tool, provide new approaches to, and combine analysis from, the main UN themes: peace & security, development, human rights (Gasper 2004) • potent framework: researchers from different disciplines can draw inspiration and expand the application of the concept

12. Human security components • Economic security: income from work/social net. Affects 75% of global population; • Food security: poor distribution and storage, lack of purchasing power/access to education and work; • Health security: diseases and unhealthy life-styles. Access to health services, clean water; • Environmental security: air/water pollution, extreme weather events, climate change, natural disasters • Personal security: crimes, domestic violence • Community security: protection from ethnic violence, minority rights, indigenous people, protection of traditional relationship and values, • Political security: society that honors human rights and dignity, freedom from torture and repression

13. From State Security to Human Security Human Security was timely for all three UN agenda: Peace Agenda: less state centric, less territorial and military, more human; Development Agenda: less econometric, growth-dependent, more human, more environmentally sustainable; Human Rights Agenda: less state-dependent, less legalistic (word ‘security’ brings urgency) Popovski, in McIntosh and Hunter (eds) New Perspectives on Human Security (2010) pp. 204-220

14. HUMAN SECURITY V HUMAN RIGHTS Human rights treaties and mechanisms address many parts of human security (Boyle & Simonsen 2004; Ramcharan 2004) Human rights and human security ensure both freedom from fear and freedom from want (Hoopes & Brinkley 1997) In the same way as human rights developed as comprehensive universal concept, unifying civil & political rights with economic, social &cultural rights; human security combines ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ components… Human insecurity does not necessarily arise from state action or inaction, it could be caused by individual criminals, by viruses, by industrial negligence or by natural disasters. The source of human insecurity is broader than the source of human rights violations (Popovski, ‘Negligence in natural disasters as human rights violations’ in Bacon, Hobson eds. Human Security and Natural Disasters (2014) UN University, Tokyo

15. TYPOLOGY OF DISASTERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

16. R2P: LEGALITY AND LEGITIMACY OF USE OF FORCE Legality: Self-defense or Security Council authorization Legitimacy Criteria: Seriousness of threat Proper Purpose Last Resort Proportionality Balance of Consequences International Commission on Kosovo: the intervention was ‘illegal, but legitimate’ ‘Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs’, Falk, Popovski (eds) (Oxford University Press 2012) UN University, Tokyo 16

17. PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS (POC) IN JUST WAR TRADITION ‘World Religions and Norms of War’ (Popovski et al. ed.) UNU Press 2009. Protection of Civilians (POC) originates in all world religions and has a long historical evolution (Islam prohibits poisonous weapons and targeting civilians) Religions do not cause wars, but facilitate recruitment of soldiers UN University, Tokyo

18. Responsibility to Protect Francis Deng (1996) ‘Sovereignty as responsibility’; African Union Charter(1999) Art 4(h) ‘intervene in a Member State in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity’; K.Annan, Two Concepts of Sovereignty, Economist’1999 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Co-Chair Gareth Evans Mohamed Sahnoun --2001 ICISS Report ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P)

19. R2P Myth One ‘R2P is Western, neo-imperialist concept’ Answer: R2P is not Western. From ICISS 12 commissioners: six from the South, six from the North. A danger for adopting R2P at the 2005 World Summit Outcome came exactly from the West: last minutes re-drafts by the US Perm. mission in NY (John Bolton)

20. from Humanitarian Intervention to R2P Humanitarian intervention: interests of intervening states, consensus will be difficult, if not impossible; R2P focus on victims, people at risk. Rescuing victims builds consensus; R2P reconciles sovereignty with intervention, resolves controversy between positive notion of humanitarian and negative notion of intervention.

21. R2P AND PROTECTION OF OF CIVILIANS (POC) ‘NORMS OF PROTECTION: R2P, POC AND THEIR INTERACTION ’ FRANCIS, POPOVSKI, SAMPFORD

22. POC: FIVE MODES OF PROTECTION • Prohibitions on Harm: development, respect and promotion of IHL • Direct Physical Protection: security presence, patrolling and as last resort, threat or use force • Dedicated protection activities: specific to achieve objectives – early warning, risk assessment • Mainstreaming protection: not new actions, rather alter the way agencies operate with POC in mind • Restorative protection: remedy actions, return of refugees, compensations for victims UN University, Tokyo

23. R2P AND POC Common in origin, in humanitarian impulse, but different in scope and applicability: POC can be narrower than R2P: all war crimes fall under R2P(ill-treatment of PoWs), but not all would fall under POC, only those committed against civilians; R2P can be narrower than POC: does not apply to all armed conflicts, only those where mass atrocities have been planned and systematically committed. UN University, Tokyo

24. POC: narrow and broad Narrow (‘Combatant’) POC: applies to military strategies in the context of armed conflict, set down in IHL Broad POC: protecting populations in post-conflict, or if they are caught in grave, widespread, lawless violence, not reaching the threshold of armed conflict (for example, one-sided violence) • Humanitarian POC • Peacekeeping POC • Security Council POC

25. R2P: narrow, but deep R2P is narrow in scope: applies to four atrocity crimes; But it has a deep resource: everything in the domestic, bilateral, regional and UN systems, everything from prevention and early warning down to use of military force.

26. Legal Sources

27. Actors

28. R2P and POC: Relationship • R2P and POC: ‘cousins, but not sisters’: reinforce each other, but there could be a tension, as R2P might be seen as too interventionist. • Distinct norms, should not be conflated, but have powerful synergies, reinforcing applications and can exercise mutually supportive roles. • R2P can be a catalyst for urgent action in potentially genocidal situations • Urgent, conscience-shocking, media-grabbing R2P should not prevail over everyday abuses of civilians, where POC actors engage. • R2P can be acceptable, if framed in more legal terms (IHL, war crimes) and with more preventive focus. If atrocity prevention succeeds, less burden for humanitarian agencies etc.

29. DEVELOPMENT OF R2P IN FIVE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL REPORTS 2009 ‘Implementing the R2P’ 2010 ‘Early warning, assessment’ 2011 ‘Role of regional/sub-regional arrangements in implementing R2P’ 2012 ‘Timely and decisive response’ 2013 ‘State responsibility and prevention’ -------------------------------------------------------- 2014 (?) Assistance (Second) Pillar

30. FIVE REPORTS; FOUR SITUATIONS; THREE PILLARS; TWO MODES Five UNSG reports Four atrocity crimes: Genocide, War crimes, Crimes against humanity, Ethnic cleansing; Three pillars: States protect domestically; States help other states to build protection capacity; If states manifestly fail, international community protects through diplomacy, sanctions or force Two modes: responsibility to prevent/rebuild; and responsibility to react. They reinforce each other

31. R2P Pyramid Pillar 3: States unwilling to protect (1%) Pillar 2: States willing, but unable to protect (15-20%) Pillar 1: States willing and able to protect (80-85%)

32. R2P Myth Two ‘R2P is another word for military intervention’ Answer: R2P is only 0.33% about military intervention

33. POC and R2P Challenges Gross violations of human rights that do not amount to civil wars or mass atrocity Very state-centric concepts, but non-state actors are closely involved; How to dealing with spoilers/perpetrators; Rely heavily on the Security Council with its anachronistic membership and veto

34. POC, R2P and the Arab Spring The Arab Spring is not the first time when POC R2P are utilized by the UN Security Council – previous SC resolutions, such as on Sudan (Darfur) and Cote d’Ivoire, also use such language; In Libya for the first time the Security Council (para 4, Res. 1973) authorized ‘all necessary measures’ for protection of civilians. No-fly-zone (para 5) has a precedent: Iraq (Res. 688). Limited use of force for humanitarian purposes has precedents in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda

35. 2016 WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT • POC as a broader concept, not limited to armed conflict • POC as both legal and political concept • POC measurement/assessment as outcome, not activity • Local v. international • Connection with disarmament and counter-terrorism agenda and communities • Connections and synergy with R2P • Strategy how to deal with non-state actors, those who co-operate and also those who don’t (‘spoilers’). UN University, Tokyo