BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW GROUP ASSIGNMENT
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW

GROUP ONE
Group Member's Name ID
[Link] Gashaw...................................... ......1310035
[Link] Barud................................. ........1310147
[Link] Yihun...................................... ........1310885
[Link] Kindshet......................................1309617
[Link] Newaye...............................................1310100
[Link] Bekele................................................1310340

SUBMITEED TO: - TESEMA (PHD)

SUBMISSION DATE: - FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2023

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We give our deep gratitude to the Almighty because for the blessing of his grace and guidance
we were able to complete the task of this paper. We express our sincere gratitude for Instructor
Tessema S. (PhD) who facilitate this opportunity which helps us to have a better understanding
on the area. We have also heartful gratitude for fourth and fifth year law students of Bahirdar
Dar University to their support with material recommendation and their fruitful opinion on the
paper. Not only this, we thanks them because their approach to us was so kindly and friendly.

1
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

CHAPTER ONE : definition, nature and historical background of responsibility to protect and
humanitarian intervention..........................................................................................................................1

1. Definition, Emergence and Development of Responsibility to Protect...............................................1

1.1. The pillars of the responsibility to protect....................................................................................4

2. Humanitarian intervention..................................................................................................................4

2.1 Definition of Humanitarian intervention.......................................................................................4

3. Relationship between RtoP and humanitarian intervention................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO፡ responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention under international law.....6

2.1. Humanitarian intervention and the prohibition of the use of force in the UN charter.....................6

2.2. Humanitarian intervention as compatible with article 2(4) of the UN charter.................................6

2.3. Humanitarian intervention as customary international law.............................................................7

2.4. THE RESPONSIBLITY TO PROTECT THROGH THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.....................8

2.5. The scope of the crimes triggering the responsibility to protect......................................................9

2.7. The legality of Forcible Regional Implementation of RtoP under International Law.......................11

2.8. Challenges of responsibility to protect...........................................................................................12

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................14

References.................................................................................................................................................15

1
 ACRONYMS

ICJ International Court of Justice

R2P Responsibility to protect

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

UN United Nations

ILC International Law commission

ICISS International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty

AU Africa Union

1
 Introduction
Interestingly, in this paper, we will see globally hot issues, responsibility to protect and
humanitarian intervention. This paper contains two chapters. Under the first chapter, we will
try to look at the definition, nature, emergence, and development of this two global concerns.
And we have also assess the relation between responsibility to protect and humanitarian
intervention. The second chapter mainly deals about the responsibility to protect and
humanitarian intervention under international arena. In this chapter we tries to look
responsibility to protect with UN charter, responsibility to protect with international court of
justice and humanitarian intervention as customary international law. Finally, the challenges of
implementing responsibility to protect is addressed.

CHAPTER ONE: definition, nature and historical background of

responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention

1. Definition, Emergence and Development of Responsibility to Protect

The Responsibility to protect is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all
member States of the United Nations at the 2005 world summit in order to address its four key
concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and Crimes humanity. The doctrine
is regard as a unanimous and well established international norm over the past two decades. 1
The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based on the underlying premise that
sovereignty entails a Responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and
human rights violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of
international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and
security, human rights, and armed conflict. 2 Although the phrase ‘responsibility to protect’ was

1
[Link]

2
Id
1
first coined only in 2001, the concept is the product of long-standing efforts to identify and
define crimes that have ‘shocked the conscience of mankind’ and to protect populations from
them.3 In 1947, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the newly formed UN General Assembly
approved the Genocide Convention, which prohibited the crime of genocide, created a
universal responsibility to prevent that crime, and required the punishment of perpetrators. In
Bosnia vs. Serbia ICJ found that states have a legal responsibility to do what they can, with in
existing law, to prevent genocide. 4 Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the
1990s, the international community began to seriously debate how to react effectively when
citizens’ human rights are grossly and systematically violated. The question at the heart of the
matter was whether States have unconditional sovereignty over their affairs or whether the
international community has the right to intervene in a country for humanitarian purposes. 5 In
his Millennium Report of 2000, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recalling the failures of the
Security Council to act in a decisive manner in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, put forward
a challenge to Member States: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault
on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic
violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”. 6 The
expression “responsibility to protect” was first presented in the report of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian Government
in December 2001. The Commission had been formed in response to Kofi Annan's question of
when the international community must intervene for humanitarian purposes. Its report, “The
Responsibility to Protect,” found that sovereignty not only gave a State the right to “control” its
affairs, it also conferred on the State primary “responsibility” for protecting the people within
its borders. It proposed that when a State fails to protect its people – either through lack of

3
Alex J. Bellamy, The Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect, p-36

4
Id

5
[Link]/prevent genocide/Rwanda, Outreach program on the Rwanda Genocide and the united nations

6
Id
1
ability or a lack of willingness – the responsibility shifts to the broader international
community.7

R2P has experienced a rapid growth, moving from mere ‘passionate prose’ in the ICISS report in
2001 to quickly becoming a ‘mainstay of international public policy debates. This support has
shown resilience in the face of backtracking from influential states a few months after the
World Summit, as well as an attempt from avowed opponents of the concept to destroy it. As
well as the significant support shown by states, the response from civil society has been
encouraging and instrumental to this success; NGOs from all over the world have joined
together to support and develop R2P, creating the influential International Coalition for the
Responsibility to Protect. Due to these factors R2P can be seen as one of the most ‘most
dramatic’ developments in international affairs and consequently there are ‘not many ideas
that have the potential to matter more for good, not only in theory but in practice’. 8
The
reason for R2P’s rapid adoption is that it provides a satisfying response to Annan’s challenge to
reconcile sovereignty and the need for action to prevent atrocities. Overall it achieves this by
moving away from the language of a right to humanitarian intervention which dominated the
debates surrounding the Kosovo intervention to focus on the ‘perspective of the victims of
human rights violations’ R2P expresses a responsibility to protect populations from atrocities as
an inherent part of state sovereignty Building on this the Canadian Permanent Representative
at the World Summit persuasively argued that R2Pstrengthens, not weakens, state sovereignty.
This is because outside non-military intervention will help states to discharge the
responsibilities which sovereignty entail. From this, a state’s failure to prevent atrocities does
not fall under the ‘domain reserve that excludes interferences from outside ‘should a state fail
to exercise their sovereignty in this way the responsibility falls to the rest of the international
community. This aspect is clearly influenced by the failure over Rwanda. 9

7
Id

8
Jay Crush, the responsibility to protect in international law, p -2

9
Id
1
1.1. The pillars of the responsibility to protect
The responsibility to protect consists of three important and mutually reinforcing pillars, as
articulated in the 2009 Report if the Secretary General on the issue. These are; the protection
responsibilities of the state, international assistance and capacity building, and timely and
decisive response are the three pillars of responsibility to protect. 10
While there is persistent
contestation about the applicability of the three pillars in practice, as to the UN Secretary
General 2012 report, the three pillars of the responsibility to protect are not sequential and are
of equal importance. Without all three the concept would be incomplete. 11
Conceptually, the
three pillars of R2P are so intertwined as to make sequencing impossible in practice. States are
supported in their efforts to fulfill the first pillar by both pillars pillar two and those elements of
the third pillar which relate to assisting ‘states under stress’ before they reach the point of
‘manifest failure’. It makes little sense to deny the obvious overlaps between the two
injunctions. Equally, it makes little sense to argue that international society should withhold
support from states (pillar two) until they face difficulty achieving their first pillar
responsibilities. Nor does it make any sense to argue that pillar two activities should cease
when ‘timely and decisive response’ is needed or that international society’s first response to
state-based mass killing should be to furnish the perpetrators with assistance. 12

2. Humanitarian intervention

2.1 Definition of Humanitarian intervention

Definition: The term "humanitarian intervention" refers to the qualified threat or the use of
force, i.e. military measures by one or more states aimed at protecting citizens of another state
against massive human right violations in their home state without the consent of their
government. It is used to describe the coercive measures aimed at changing political policy
decisions in another state with the intention of ensuring respect for the most fundamental
human rights. This definition excludes intervention undertaken exclusively for the protection of
intervening state's own nationals. From an international law perspective, excluding intervention
10
Supra note 2

11
Id

12
Supra note 4 p-53
1
undertaken with the sole purpose of protecting a state's own national is justified, even if from
human right perspective atrocities committed against foreigners in another country are equally
serious human right violations.13

3. Relationship between Top and humanitarian intervention

As we have discussed above R2P and humanitarian intervention are among the main concern of
international law. When we look into literatures of scholars, most of them used R2P and
humanitarian intervention as interrelated and use both concepts when they deal with
international law. But when we see other sources and writing of scholar's, they tries to make
some distinction between them. Now let's see some distinction between the two concepts.
The responsibility to protect differs from humanitarian intervention in four important ways. 14
First, humanitarian intervention only refers to the use of military force, whereas R2P is first and
foremost a preventive principle that emphasizes a range of measures to stem the risk of
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity before the crimes are
threatened or occur. The use of force may only be carried out as a measure of last resort, when
all other non-coercive measures have failed, and only it is authorized by the UN Security
council. This is in contrast to the principle of humanitarian intervention, which claims to allow
for the use of force as a humanitarian imperative without the authorization of the Security
Council. The second point relates to the first. As a principle, the responsibility to protect is
rooted firmly in existing international law especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and
security, human rights and and armed conflict. Third, human interventions have in the past
been justified in the context of varying situations, R2P focus only on the four mass atrocity
crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The first three
crimes are clearly defined in international law and codified in the "Rome statute of the
international criminal court", the treaty which establish the international criminal court. Ethnic
cleansing is not a crime defined under international law, but it has been defined by the UN.
Finally, while humanitarian intervention assumes a "right to intervene", the R2P is based on a
"responsibility to protect”. Humanitarian intervention and R2P both agree on the fact that
13
Mark Swatek-Evenstein, History of Humanitarian intervention at Cambridge University, p- 12-13

14
[Link] to Protect
1
sovereignty is not absolute. However the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centered
motivation to the interest of victims by focusing not on the right of state to intervene but on
the responsibility to protect population at risk. 15 But, generally for the purpose of this paper,
we tries to look these two concepts with reference to international law as interrelated rather
than concentrate on their distinction.

CHAPTER TWO፡ responsibility to protect and humanitarian

intervention under international law
2.1. Humanitarian intervention and the prohibition of the use of force in the UN charter
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from
the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person ...UN
Charter, Preamble. 16 Most contemporary writing on humanitarian intervention recounts this
tension, then proceeds to consider a series of alleged instances of intervention on humanitarian
grounds in order to conclude whether or not such a right exists in practice. The failure to
reconcile the relevant Charter provisions with such customary international law analysis is
indicative of how little has changed in the tenor of debate on humanitarian intervention over
the last hundred years. 17

2.2. Humanitarian intervention as compatible with article 2(4) of the UN charter

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles: ... 4. All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations. 18 UN Charter, Article 2(4) Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits 'the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
15
Id

16
Simon Chester man, Just Peace and Just war? Humanitarian Intervention and International law, p -56

17
Ibid p 56-57

18
UN Charter, Article 2(4)
1
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations'. The only exceptions to this
prohibition in the text of the Charter are the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-
defense' in Article 51, and Security Council authorized enforcement actions under Chapter VII.
In order to establish that a right of humanitarian intervention is compatible with the terms of
the Charter, it is necessary to show that it would not violate Article 2(4). This considers two sets
of arguments that attempt to do just this: that a genuinely humanitarian intervention would not
be a use offered 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of the target state,
or that it would not be 'inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations'. 19

2.3. Humanitarian intervention as customary international law

A more common argument in support of a right of humanitarian intervention is that it exists in
parallel with the UN Charter. In Nicaragua, the ICJ observed that the Charter does not cover the
whole area of the regulation of the use of force in international relations. Notably, Article 51
refers to the 'inherent right of self-defense'. Most arguments in favor of a customary right of
humanitarian intervention proceed on the basis that it is a legitimate form of self-help. Writing
in 1967, Richard Lillich argued that, in the absence of effective action by the UN, unilateral
intervention by states was permissible in cases involving gross deprivations of basic human
rights. This was followed shortly by 'Humanitarian Intervention to Protect the Ibos' by Michael
Riesman and Myers McDougal, urging UN action in Nigeria, or, in its absence, unilateral action
by one or more states. This consider two arguments in favor of an independent customary law
right of humanitarian intervention: as a form of self-help that survived the adoption of the
Charter, and as an emerging norm of customary international law that has modified existing
Charter obligations. This provides the doctrinal background for the examination of state
practice that follows. 20

2.4. THE RESPONSIBLITY TO PROTECT THROGH THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

OF JUSTICE
An important aspect of state obligation arising under RtoP is that of international legal
responsibility attached to their breaches through acts or omissions. Both the contentious and
19
Supra note 16 p-60

20
Ibid p - 67
1
the advisory function of the ICJ are relevant in this regard. An advisory opinion by the ICJ could
assist the General Assembly in it’s regarding the scope and character of the responsibility to
protect. Thus Security Council could also profit from the court's guidance on relevant legal
matters. Eventually, interstate disputes concerning RtoP obligation can be resolved through the
court's contentious jurisdiction. Establishing the contentious jurisdiction of the ICJ Court is not a
simple matter. Only some of the human rights treaties have a compromiser clause bestowing
jurisdiction on the court and a number of state have entered reservation towards the clause
upon the ratification of the treaties. The compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article
36(2) of its statue is accepted by only 66 of the 193 Member states of the UN. These
jurisdictional barriers have already prevented the court from entertaining cases where the
violation of obligation arising under the responsibility to protect. Under Article 93(1) of the UN
Charter, all UN Member States are ipso facto Members of the Statute of the ICJ. Thus, in
principle, any of them can eventually seize the Court of a dispute involving violation of
international law obligation arising under the responsibility to protect. Moreover, under Article
48(1) (b) of the Articles on state Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the
International Law Commission (ILC) in 2001, any State other than an injured state, is entitled to
invoke the responsibility of another State when the obligation breached is owed to the
international community as a whole. Arguably, invoking that responsibility could involve
bringing a case before the ICJ when the obligation breached concerns the prohibition of
genocide. Besides, that could also include gross and systematic violation of principles and rules
protecting basic rights of the human person falling under the responsibility to protect, namely
war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleaning. 21

2.5. The scope of the crimes triggering the responsibility to protect.

Is Reliance on International crimes the Best Approach? In 2001, the report of the international
commission on intervention and state sovereignty (ICISS) took a very different approach to RtoP
.As a comprehensive attempt to conceptualist RtoP,the Report postulated that the
responsibility of states other than the territorial state was triggered by the population 'suffering
major harm' and by the unwillingness or inability of the state concerned to halt or avert such

21
Gentian Zyberi, responsibility to protect p 306-307
1
[Link] contrast to the 2004 High Level Panel Report, the 2005 'in Large Freedom 'Report
and the 2005 World Summit outcome Document , the ICISS report did not rely on a list ,let
alone an exhaustive list ,of international crime. Instead, the initial notion of of RtoP indicated
that at its core the concept was about the serious harm that a population suffered. 22 A
significant illustration of the conceptual and practical challenge inherent in the notion of RtoP is
the debate that ensued following a French proposal to invoke RtoP in relation to the cyclone
that struck Myanmar in May 2008. The proposal was never accepted, but it brought to the fore
divergent views on what should, and what should not, trigger the responsibility of third states
that are postulated by the concept of RtoP. Edward Luck indicated that stretching the concept
of RtoP would be ill-advised and 'beyond what was intended'. Other such as Gareth Evans,
argued that situation did amount to an RtoP situation because the cause of action adopted by
the military junta amounted to a crime against humanity. Although seemingly opposed, these
two position are effectively in agreement, in as much as they support the contention that the
concept of RtoP should be limited to the crimes of genocide war crimes, crimes against
humanity and ethnic cleansing. 23 As some have argued, there are existing obligation to prevent
and react in particular, for example in a number of international criminal law treaties. There is
also an all- encompassing obligation to respect, and ensure respect for all provisions of the four
Geneva convention (not only those relating to grave breaches).Thus, to confine RtoP to a
limited list of crimes may very well send a message to territorial and third states to take those
pre-existing obligation that attach to crimes other than those that trigger RtoP less seriously. 24

2.6. The Responsibility to protect and common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions

and obligations.

Even if one were to subscribe to such such a notion of sovereignty, it is clear that states have
voluntarily surrendered parts of their otherwise unlimited power by signing certain treaties,
thereby agreeing to be bound by their specific provisions and international law in general.

22
Jann K Klefner, responsibility to protect, p 85

23
Ibid p 86

24
Ibid p 90
1
Common Article 1 of the Geneva Convention states that “The High Contracting parties
undertake to respect and ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances. 25 For
the principle of RtoP, the focus should be on the second half of provision, and the undertaking
'to ensure respect’. The undertaking 'to respect' should be understood as a repetition of the
general obligation of states derived from the principle of pacta sunt servanda that requires
states to adhere to their treaty obligation in good faith.26 The object and and purpose of the
Geneva Convention in 1949 and today is the protection of civilians and reduction of suffering
during armed conflicts. Nonetheless, subsequent practice is less clear at first sight .Many
instances and diplomatic statements speak for an interpretation from which obligation of third
states can be derived under Article 1. Among these, the 1968 Teheran Conference on Human
Rights in Armed Conflict and its outcome document are significant, as they confirm the duty of
every state, party or not to a conflict, to ensure respect of International humanitarian law.
Further, in 2004, the International Court of Justice in the Wall Advisory Opinion confirmed that
under common Article 1 to the Geneva Convention , every state , whether or not it is a party to
a specific conflict , is under an obligation to ensure that the requirement of the instrument in
question are complied with.27 By now the ICJ has confirmed the duty to prevent genocide, and
there has been a continuous shift and growing momentum for the RtoP movement. This is
particularly reflected in the continuous reference to the principle by government strategy
papers, including the 2010 US National Security Strategy. It is even more important to note
that the Geneva Convention have been universally ratified and are considered to codify
customary law. This means that every single state is obliged to ' ensure respect ' for them,
irrespective of whether they include the RtoP principle in their national strategies. A state was
right when she found a lack of state practice in relation to the Genocide Convention. The same
is true concerning the principle of RtoP . Such practice would be indeed be required to
construct an obligation on the basis of a customary rule, for which obviously opinion juries and

25
Hanna Brollowski, Responsibility to Protect, p 94

26
Ibid p 95

27
Ibid p 96
1
practice are required. However, in the absence of a customary norm, states are in any case
bound via their treaty obligation under common Article 1. 28

2.7. The legality of Forcible Regional Implementation of RtoP under International Law.
It does not automatically follow that, just because a regional organization asserts a residual
right to use force to protect human lives, such a claim automatically meets the requirement of
international law. There is no doubt that the World Summit Outcome Document, the high Level
Panel Report and the ICISS Report all contribute enormously to international law , especially
regarding the relation of the security council to other actors in respect to RtoP. 29 Unless the AU
is explicitly or implicitly authorized by the security council to take enforcement action in a
member state , an enforcement action by the union , even to protect human lives, risks
illegality under the charter rule If the AU undertake an enforcement action that the security
council does not authorize prior to the action , or takes steps towards retroactively approving,
the action is potentially illegitimate and will be seen to have breached Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter .However, if the AU takes the action pursuant to a request by the concerned Member
state , then this presumably becomes a peacekeeping operation under Article 4(j) of the AU Act
, which does not require Security Council authorization. But if the AU later employs military
force within that operation against , say ,a rebel group within that Member State , but not the
state itself, this is still an enforcement action, insofar as it is aimed at extracting the compliance
of the target party with international law. What makes an action enforcement is not the party
against which it is directed, but the purpose it seeks to achieve. A regional enforcement action
taken for the sole purpose of implementing RtoP may receive accolades from the whole world,
but it does not escape the legal requirements of the UN Charter. The Wso Document, and other
allied instruments, may confer some authority on the international community to protect
people against the most reprehensible crimes in the world, but this obligation are derived from
international instrument other than the UN Charter; hence, by virtue of Article 103 of the
charter, the charter would prevail over such obligations, should there ever be a conflict
between the two. The argument may be made that Article 103 is addressed to states and not to
28
Ibid p 97

29
Julia Hoffmann and Andre Nollkaemper, Responsibility to protect from principle to practice
1
international organization, and since the latter are not signatories to the UN Charter, their use
of force ( unauthorized by the Security Council) to implement RtoP is not in Collision with
Article 103. Sound as this argument may seem, it is difficult to see how states could escape
collectively from obligation that they individually assume under the UN Charter .In any case, the
action would still violate Article 53(1) of the Charter.30 It is possible that, in the future,
commentators will seek refuge in the doctrinal exposition of the concept of RtoP by the ICISS in
order to justify the use of force against a state without its consent.31

2.8. Challenges of responsibility to protect

The creation of any new international norm takes time and R2P is no exception. While the
international community has relative wide agreement on the general concept of R2P, the
details of its application and implementation are less settled. Developing states in particular
have two important concerns about the use of R2P. First, many of these states, particularly
poor developing states with a colonial legacy, are fearful the great powers will use R2P as a
pretext to intervene, either to gain access to resources or for regime change in favor of the
great powers. Second, many of the developing states, such as the Philippines, continue to have
domestic insurgency movements. These states wish to prevent R2P from being used as a means
to interfere in what they consider an internal dispute. While supporting R2P in principle, these
states continue to emphasize the importance of political sovereignty and the need for
international support in implementing R2P domestically rather than direct international military
intervention.32 There are three major challenges in moving R2P from theory to practice. The
first is conceptual – to ensure that the scope, and limits, of the norm as it has evolved are well
understood in all parts of the world, so that misunderstandings (for example that R2P is only
about military intervention) do not persist, and that as new situations arise requiring preventive
or reactive action by the international community, there will be broad consensus about what to
do. The second is institutional, to ensure that governments and intergovernmental
organizations have available all the diplomatic, civilian and, as necessary, military capability
30
Ibid,p- 230

31
Ibid,p-231

32
Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations New York, 20-21 November 2008 , About the Responsibility to Protect
1
needed to ensure effective early warning and early action, to provide essential assistance to
those countries who need and want it—and most importantly, to people desperately in need of
protection. The third, as always, is political: to ensure that when mass atrocities next occur, the
necessary commitment will be there from the decision-makers that matter. This means having
arrangements in place for effective mobilization by both governments and civil society. 33

Conclusion
Responsibility to protect and Humanitarian Intervention are the two important aspects of
international law, especially in the contemporary international law system. RtoP is based on
underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass
atrocity crimes and human right violations. RtoP is constituted based on three well known
pillars. RtoP experienced a rapid growth, moving from mere passionate prose to mainstay of
international public policy debates. Humanitarian Intervention refers to the qualified threat or
use of force to protect citizens of another state. RtoP and Humanitarian Intervention are much
related and RtoP is adequately work without Humanitarian Intervention and vice versa.
Humanitarian Intervention is incorporated in many international law documents like UN
charter. It we also viewed in the perspective of customary international law. The RtoP is also
reflected by ICJ in its contentious and advisory function. The RtoP and common articles of the
33
Id
1
1949 Geneva Conventions and obligations is another important point that reflects the working
of RtoP under international law. It is also claimed that regional organization have a residual
right to use force in order to protect human lives under fulfilment of certain conditions set by
international law. While the international community has relative wide agreement on the
general concept of RtoP, the details of its application and implementation are less settled. To
concluded, as an international law aspect RtoP and Humanitarian Interventions are the two
important instruments to safeguard human beings from sever human right violations, even if it
has its own political aspect.

References
BOOKS: Alex J. Bellamy, The Three pillars of responsibility to protect.

 Jay Crush, The Responsibility to protect in international law.

 Mark Swatek-Evestein, History of Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University.

 Simon Chesterman, Just peace and just war? Humanitarian Intervention and

international law Julia Hoffman and Andre Nollkaemper, Responsibility to

protect from principle to practice

LAWS: UN Charter

WEBSITES: [Link]

1
[Link]/prevent genocide/Rwanda, Outreach program on the Rwanda Genocide and the
United Nations
[Link] to Protect