Of all the articles assigned, I found the Economist article the most interesting. It also raised many questions that I had also thought of when I first heard of R2P - including the possibility that countries such as the U.S. could use R2P as an excuse to intervene in other countries. Humanitarian intervention has been perverted to such a point, and R2P stands to be used in similar manners.
How does one further define R2P without becoming to explicit? The "delicate" terms that were put forth by Gareth Evans and others are delicate because they are also very vague - when is it ok to intervene? When a certain amount of people have died? Before people are killed? There are too many variables here to set one answer to the equation. There are no guidelines to when an intervention is needed, but there is little doubt after the fact when one was called for. Rwanda? Yes. The former Yugoslavia? Yes. Name countless others, and yes, there should have been something done. But by who?
One final question, in a post filled with questions, is towards the title "Right" to protect. Whose rights are we protecting through this measure?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment