The 2005 initiative R2P entails a variety of principles and norms that redefine the ideal of sovereignty. According to Baylis & Smith, sovereign privileges are not rights of entitlement but responsibilities (1997 P. 394). Over the past decades, several countries have laid claims on having sovereign rights within state interests. This trend has evolved in the recent past following a series of events and atrocities in major countries. As countries, the need to strike an efficient policy to manage a multilateral approach is critical. Multi lateral approaches in regard to foreign states interactions involve having different states engage in constructive means of interaction. Many countries in this context see a better means of enhancing better developments. The internationalism concurrence entails a variety of foreign policies to enable a mutual bond without unnecessary intrusion. The ideal of internationalism boards between political insinuations that enable a state to fulfill roles that are multilateral to drive their economic and political strength. Wesley and Warren assert that the local region receive more support from the different paradigms within its foreign policy index. On the other hand, certain states disapprove the multilateral paradigm. Such states feel that realism is ideal. Realism in matters of foreign policy demands that states act unilaterally in their operations without any linkage with others. The states in this facet may also opt for a bilateral association. Bilateral linkages involve an agreement between just two states on certain interest issues (Firth, 1999). To strike a better means of relationship while maintaining sovereignty requires use of certain strategies and agreements that fall within the states’ foreign policy confines.
The ICISS report of 2001 enacted a variety of ways to intervene in every member countries’ affairs especially in matters of R2P and the military. Certain criterion was formulated, which included the following:
- The threat must have the likelihood to pose a threat to humanity
- The intention of the military must be in line with prevention of human suffering
- All measures must have been exhausted
In light of the following postulations, expectations demanded that many states adopt the report. However, the following report was not adopted due to the claims of interventionist policies. Interventionism alludes to interferences of state affairs by other states. These variances are not in line with many country regulations (Kochler, 2001). As such, many states today are cutting out of internationalism treaties with a line to promote unilateral dealings as well bilateral preferences.
As a form of foreign policy strategies, many states have a system of promoting the idealistic nuances of cooperation and strategic importance. States develop a way to create a humanitarian intervention that recognizes other states in the picture yet stand sovereign in their jurisdiction. From this angle, many states fault the international watchdog phenomenon and often resolve to practice unilateral affiliations.
As a foreign policy feature, many states, especially those in the developing world, wish to have guidance and peripheral interventions that aim to foster limited standards through nongovernmental policies. According to Firth (1999), the genocide as the one in Rwanda became a source of apprehension on the variances of correspondences. Gallagher asserts that sovereignty ceases to protect states from interferences by other states (2012, P. 12). It goes further to put accountability to the states so that they (states) have personal responsibilities and accountabilities to themselves as key stakeholders in their freedom and interactions.
In the recent past, many states have resolved to enact better policies that endear them to their nationals as well as the international arena. From the concept of internationalism (explained) several states require diplomatic ties that do not necessarily resort to military intervention. They feel that military actions must not become any faster measure to end violence and uphold human justice. The strategy of each state is to have a primary role of protecting its nationals from grave atrocities like genocide, and humanity crimes. Each state requires personal policies that go in line with The R2P act in the UN stipulations. The R2P on the side of the international community entails bilateral encouragements and states assistance to aid in driving this responsibility. Therefore, procedures of many states are often diplomatic, as well as humanitarian. In certain cases of persistent crimes, collective responsibility must emerge in accordance with the statutes of UN charter.
On the contrary, certain critics feel that R2P is an infringement to national sovereignty. By international laws, no country stands above the other. In that regard, every state should decide own policies that guard the interests of its nationals. The scope is also questioned in line with the atrocities required. Often, the four crimes are not adequate to justify such responsibilities. Instead, the states should devise a means of strategizing on appropriate pulls of pressure. These variances often become shrouded by the selectivity criterion at the Security Council. Five states veto doe not favor the selectivity process. Either way, the R2P is a nice move. Every state must strategize on effective means to create a better correspondence at implementation.
Reference
Baylis and Smith, (1997). The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, p 394
Deng, Francis, Rothchild, Donald, et al. (1996). "Sovereignty as Responsibility Conflict Management in Africa". (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. c. 290pp.
Firth, S. (1999). Australia in international politics: An introduction to Australian foreign policy. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Gallagher, Adrian. (2012) ‘A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P’, Global Responsibility to Protect, vol. 4, no. 3, 334-357.
Judson. AM. (2012) "Where is R2P grounded in international law", Otago University. PDF available at http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/handle/10523/2279
Köchler, Hans, (2001). Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics: Is the Revival of the Doctrine of "Just War" Compatible with the International Rule of Law? (Studies in International Relations, XXVI.) Vienna: International Progress Organization.
