The following essay focuses on the phase when the actual fighting and violence stops, the phases of de-escalation and consolidation, where within the concept of the R2P the means and tools of rebuilding and conciliation shall avoid another fighting again. The underlying research question consequently asks: if the concept of the R2P addresses prevention, conflict management as well as post conflict rebuilding, does there exist an obligation and a legal
1 HIICR, Conflict Barometer 2010, http://hiik.de/de/konfliktbarometer/index.html.
4
justification within this context for a jus post bellum under the international law? Measures for an after conflict time rebuilding have never been before part of a wider legal concept to fight violent conflicts. It often was treated as part of development efforts and policies, but never as a legal obligation for an intervening party. For this reason some legal experts call it already a jus post bellum. The term of the jus post bellum then describes the legal responsibility and commitment of the international community as well as certain individual nations within the overall frame of the R2P. The hypothesis for that reason is that the concept of the Responsibility to Protect will fail to prevent deadly conflicts as long there is no legal obligation and an international tool set for a jus post bellum as a pre-conflict prevention of a new outbreak.
Within the essay, the author wants to provide an overview of the Concept of the R2P, the legal perception of this concept in the context of the Law of Armed Conflict and especially of the obligations and possibilities coming along with this concept after the end of violent conducts. The research question therefore provides the framework for this essay, whilst the hypothesis shall be used to prove limitations and possibilities of a legal concept that might develop towards a jus post bellum.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- The concept and the idea of the R2P
- The Law of Armed Conflict in International Law
- A theoretical approach to deadly conflicts
- The Responsibility to Protect and the Jus post Bellum
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay examines the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept, specifically its application in the post-conflict phase, and explores whether it creates a legal obligation for a "jus post bellum." It investigates the existing legal framework of the Law of Armed Conflict and analyzes the theoretical aspects of escalation in deadly conflicts, focusing on the post-violence stage. The ultimate goal is to determine if the R2P concept, without a formalized "jus post bellum," can effectively prevent future conflicts.
- The concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
- The role of international law in post-conflict situations
- The theoretical framework of escalation and de-escalation in conflict
- The potential for a "jus post bellum" within the R2P framework
- The limitations and possibilities of establishing a legal obligation for post-conflict rebuilding
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter sets the stage by highlighting the evolution of international law and the Law of Armed Conflict, emphasizing the shift from a focus on state sovereignty to the increasing prevalence of intrastate conflicts. It introduces the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept as a response to mass atrocities and positions the essay's focus on the post-conflict phase of R2P, questioning whether existing international law provides an adequate framework for a "jus post bellum" – a legal obligation for post-conflict reconstruction. The chapter establishes the research question and hypothesis, outlining the essay's structure and methodology.
2. The concept and idea of the R2P: This chapter delves into the origins and development of the R2P concept, tracing its emergence from the aftermath of atrocities in Rwanda, Srebrenica, and other conflicts. It highlights the ICISS report of 2001 as a pivotal document in shifting the focus from state sovereignty to the protection of populations. The chapter details the "three pillars" of R2P, outlining the responsibilities of states and the international community in preventing, responding to, and rebuilding after mass atrocity crimes. It emphasizes the four major crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and large-scale ethnic cleansing—as the triggers for international intervention under R2P.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Jus post bellum, international law, Law of Armed Conflict, state sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, post-conflict reconstruction, mass atrocity crimes, prevention, intervention, reconciliation.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main topic of this essay?
The essay examines the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, specifically focusing on its application in the post-conflict phase. It investigates whether R2P creates a legal obligation akin to "jus post bellum" (a legal framework for post-war justice and reconstruction).
What are the key themes explored in the essay?
Key themes include the R2P concept itself, the role of international law in post-conflict situations, the theoretical framework of conflict escalation and de-escalation, the potential for a "jus post bellum" within R2P, and the limitations and possibilities of establishing a legal obligation for post-conflict rebuilding.
What is the structure of the essay?
The essay is structured into several chapters. It begins with an introduction that sets the context and research question. Subsequent chapters delve into the concept of R2P, the relevant aspects of international law (including the Law of Armed Conflict), and a theoretical approach to deadly conflicts. The essay culminates in an analysis of R2P's effectiveness in preventing future conflicts in the absence of a formalized "jus post bellum."
What is the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P)?
R2P is a concept that emerged in response to mass atrocities. It shifts the focus from state sovereignty to the protection of populations. It comprises three pillars: prevention, reaction, and rebuilding after mass atrocity crimes. The four major crimes triggering international intervention under R2P are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and large-scale ethnic cleansing.
What is "Jus post bellum," and how does it relate to R2P?
"Jus post bellum" refers to a legal framework for justice and reconstruction after a conflict. The essay explores whether R2P implicitly or explicitly creates such a legal obligation. The central question is whether R2P can effectively prevent future conflicts without a formalized "jus post bellum."
What legal frameworks are examined in the essay?
The essay examines the existing legal framework of the Law of Armed Conflict and analyzes how it intersects with the R2P doctrine in the context of post-conflict situations. The essay also explores the theoretical possibility of developing a "jus post bellum" to complement R2P.
What are the keywords associated with this essay?
Key words include: Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Jus post bellum, international law, Law of Armed Conflict, state sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, post-conflict reconstruction, mass atrocity crimes, prevention, intervention, reconciliation.
What is the overall objective of the essay?
The ultimate goal is to determine if the R2P concept, without a formalized "jus post bellum," can effectively prevent future conflicts. The essay seeks to analyze the existing legal and theoretical frameworks to address this question.
What methodology does the essay employ?
While the specific methodology isn't detailed in the provided preview, it can be inferred that the essay employs a combination of legal analysis, theoretical examination, and potentially historical case studies to analyze the R2P doctrine and its implications.
- Quote paper
- Dipl. pol., MCGI Göran Swistek (Author), 2012, The Responsibility to Protect and the obligations for a Jus post Bellum, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/230329
