Thursday, June 3, 2010

Does R2P Do More Harm than Good?

William Magnusun recently published an article entitled, "The Responsibility to Protect and the Decline of Sovereignty: Free Speech Protection Under International Law" in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, arguing that the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine has solved one problem in international law while opening up another.  He states:"After World War II, countries began to accept that human rights violations inside of a country were the concern of the international community as a whole, and human rights treaties proliferated. These treaties were weak, though, and generally unenforceable. After the crises in Rwanda and Somalia, countries came together to create the doctrine of a responsibility to protect, under which the international community had an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity. But the doctrine left out a whole slew of other important individual rights, including the freedom of speech. . .This selective choosing of rights does harm to the legitimacy and power of international law."  To read more, you can access the article on SSRN here.


| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does R2P Do More Harm than Good?:


Post a comment