Article Review
Article Review
World Summit. The act refers to the moral responsibility that states have to intervene in another country’s affairs if substantial human rights concerns, such as genocide, are taking place. Despite the adoption of R2P, its implementation is something that has been debated upon the UN and other nations. The present research examines Alex Bellamy’s article “Realizing the responsibility to protect” he works towards moving from “words to deeds” in relation to the R2P. Specifically, Bellamy’s background is examined, his methodology in making his claims is considered, his main points are analyzed, and opinions are advanced regarding his article.
The study’s author Alex Bellamy works for the University of Queensland Australia. At this institution, he is the Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also the Director of the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Furthermore, is the Non-Resident the International Peace Institute, New York and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. In addition to the research article currently being examined, Bellamy has authored a multitude of other works, including his most recent work, “Responsibility to Protect: A Defence.” He is also the co-editor of the journal Global Responsibility to Protect. Clearly, his extensive work and experience are such that they position him as an expert in the field and a reliable source.
Bellamy outlines his methodology towards the beginning of the article. As noted, his main intention is to works towards bridging the divide between words and deeds. In accomplishing this, he indicates that he has divided the article into three stages. In the first stage, he charts the post-summit revolt that emerged against the R2P, addressing the reasons for this revolt in the process. In the second stage, he explores why an association between R2P and humanitarian intervention continues to exist. In the third stage, he offers an alternative strategy for promoting R2P through changing the focus away from an emphasis on its non-consensual measures, to instead emphasize prevention and institutional reform (Bellamy 2009).
As noted, Bellamy’s first area of investigation is his consideration of the revolt that occurred against R2P in the time period following its 2005 implementation. The main point that contributed to the emergence of this revolt was that R2P was associated with humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention necessary was related to unilateral intervention. Russia has particularly objected to this, claiming that it would go against the UN Charter. Bellamy claims that countries such as Cuba and Pakistan object because they are attempting to thwart the international community’s efforts to make any significant change; however, countries such as China and Russia object because they view “humanitarian” intervention as a loophole that can be used to justify armed conflict. In subsequent sections, Bellamy goes on to propose a number of solutions to the challenges that R2P faces. Among the first solutions he proposes is the need to more effectively clarify what would constitute humanitarian intervention, as this is a point that many countries have objected based upon (Bellamy 2009).
When one considers the ideas of responsibility to protect, a number of important elements must be deliberated. Although from a quick perusal of Bellamy’s arguments, one may think he is merely equivocating over language, a thorough consideration of their internal components shows that he is proposing sound structural changes to the existing doctrine. Consider when Bellamy clarifies how he would establish justification for entering a foreign country; specifically, he believes that, “the responsibility to prevent be revised to focus specifically on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities” (Bellamy 2009, 120). While such an emphasis may have prevented the United States from entering Iraq, it would have made it possible for the Security Council to approve interventions in Darfur or even possibly to stop mass atrocities being committed by ISIS. Bellamy further specifies that just because R2P would be limited to genocide and mass atrocities, does not mean that it wouldn’t still engage in nonconsensual force when necessary. Rather, Bellamy believes that such nonconsensual force can be at times critical to preventing the forms of genocide or mass atrocity that are essential to its functioning. However, despite the practical solutions he advances – which are undoubtedly the strength of his approach – he eventually acquiesces to state that the main functioning of R2P is like an outline that countries can use to recognize the potential protection that is there for them in cases of genocide or mass atrocity (Bellamy 2009).
Another objection to Bellamy’s article is that despite the practical solutions he proposes, in some ways he is beholden to the Western-centric view in which he is attempting to escape. For instance, in his description of the reasons that countries such as Cuba and Pakistan have rejected to such measures, he makes the superficial claim that these countries are merely opposed to any form of organized intervention. One cannot also escape that fact that he is writing from a largely Western worldview, which further embraces its values and moral assumptions. A more comprehensive account would take an unbiased approach to these values (Bellamy 2009).
Still, another important consideration is the substantial emphasis he places on clarification of concepts. While Bellamy is effective in offering the practical solution of simplifying the R2P by limiting it to genocide, in many other situations he claims the solution is further clarification. Rather than focusing on the linguistic elements, it would seem that Bellamy’s argument would be strengthened through focusing to a greater degree on devising practical solutions. That is, to some degree the linguistic confusion appears to have arisen from differences of opinion among member states (Bellamy 2009).
Works Cited
Bellamy, Alex J. "Realizing the responsibility to protect." International Studies Perspectives
10, no. 2 (2009): 111-128.
