Responsibility to Protect: Protecting Humans in a World of States

Abstract

This study aims to analyze problems in Responsibility to Protect from a theoretical perspective. Drawing on the English School theory, it argues that rules and institutions shared by individuals are in conflict with the rules and institutions shared among states. For the English School, values and rules shared by individuals as well as institutions built on them are elements of world society. Based on this definition, Responsibility to Protect is defined as an element of world society. Nevertheless, international society is responsible for the implementation of Responsibility to Protect. The English School defines international society as a form of order which is established by the values, rules and institutions that are shared among states. International society prevails against world society in a way to determine the political organization of the contemporary international relations. This study further argues that this is also the principal reason behind the problematic functioning of the responsibility to protect.

Keywords

• Responsibility to Protect,The English School,International Society,World Society,Human Security

Koruma Sorumluluğu: Devletlerin Dünyasında İnsanları Korumak

Abstract

Bu çalışma, koruma sorumluluğunun sorunlu işleyişini kuramsal bir perspektifle analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, İngiliz Okulu kuramından hareket ile insanların paylaştığı değer, kurum ve kurallarla, devletlerin paylaş-tığı değer kurum ve kurallar arasında bir çatışma oldu-ğunu öne sürmektedir. İngiliz Okuluna göre devlet dışı aktörlerin paylaştığı değer ve kurallar ile bu değer ve kurallar üzerine kurulmuş kurumlar dünya toplumunun birer unsurudurlar. Koruma sorumluluğu da bu tanım doğrultusunda dünya toplumunun bir unsuru olarak tanımlanmıştır. Ancak koruma sorumluluğunun uygu-lanması uluslararası topluma bırakılmıştır. Uluslararası toplum da İngiliz Okulu tarafından devletler arasında paylaşılan değer ve kurallar ile bunların üzerine kurulmuş kurumların yarattığı düzeni ifade eder. Çalışma kapsa-mında, koruma sorumluluğunun sorunlu işleyişinin temel sebebinin uluslararası toplumun dünya toplumuna göre günümüz uluslararası ilişkilerinin örgütlenme biçimini belirleyecek kadar baskın konumda bulunması olduğu iddia edilmektedir.

Keywords

• Koruma Sorumluluğu,İngiliz Okulu,Uluslararası Toplum,Dünya Toplumu,İnsani Güvenlik

References

1. Acharya, Amitav (2013), “Human Security”, (Ed. John Baylis vd.), The Globalization in World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 448-463.
2. Arsava, A.Füsun (2011), “Egemenlik ve Koruma Sorumluluğu”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 15, S. 1: 101-124.
3. Bellamy Alex J.; Reike, Ruben (2010), “The responsibility to protect and international law”, Global Responsibility to Protect, C. 2, S. 3: 267-286.
4. Brockmeier, Sarah, Stuenkel, Oliver, Tourinho, Marcos (2016), “The impact of the Libya intervention debates on norms of protection”, Global Society, C. 30, S.1: 113-133.
5. Bull, Hedley (1985), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Hong Kong: Macmillan.
6. Bull, Hedley; Watson Adam (1985), “Introduction”, (Ed. Hedley Bull ve Adam Watson), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1-9.
7. Buzan, Barry (2004), From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Chandler, David (2004), “The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’”, International Peacekeeping, C. 11, S. 1: 59-81.

9. Cunliffe, Philip (2007), “Sovereignty and the Politics of Responsibility”, (Ed. Christopher J. Bickerton vd.), Politics without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations, New York:UCL Press: 39-57.
10. Donelan, Michael (1990), Elements of International Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11. Ertuğrul, Ümmühan Elçin (2016), “Koruma Sorumluluğu: İnsani Müdahaleyi Makyajlamak”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 20, N. 2: 441-470.
12. Global Centre for Responsiblity to Protect, “R2P References in United Nations Security Council Resolutions and Presidential Statements” http://www. globalr2p.org/media/files/unsc-resolutions-and-statements-with-r2p-table-as-of-20-june-2018.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 02/04/2019).
13. Global Centre for Responsiblity to Protect, “UN General Assembly Resolutions Referencing R2P”, http://www.globalr2p.org/resources/1133 (Erişim Tarihi 02/04/2019).
14. Gözen Ercan, Pınar (2014), “R2P: From Slogan to an International Ethical Norm”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, C. 11, s. 43: 35-52.
15. Hehir, Aidan (2013), “The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect”, International Security, C. 38, S.1: 137-159.
16. Hubert, Don (2004), “An Idea that Works in Practice”, Security Dialogue, C. 35, S. 3: 351-352.
17. Kelleci, Tuğçe; Bodur Ün, Marella (2017), “TWAIL ve Yeni Bir Hâkimiyet Aracı Olarak Koruma Sorumluluğu (R2P): Libya Örneği”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, C. 14, S. 56: 89-104.
18. Kenkel, K. M; Stefan, C. G. (2016), “Brazil and The Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and The Timing of Diplomatic Support”, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, C. 22, S. 1: 41-58.
19. Linklater, Andrew (1981), “Men and Citizens in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, C. 7, S. 1: 23-37.
20. Manning, Charles A. W. (1962), The Nature of International Society, Londra: Macmillan.
21. Mayall, James (2013), World Politics: Progress and Its Limits, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Mégret, Frédéric (2009), “Beyond The ‘Salvation’ Paradigm: Responsibility to Protect (Others) vs The Power of Protecting Oneself”, Security Dialogue, C. 40, S. 6: 575-595.
23. Okolo, Ben Simon (2008), “Human Security and The Responsibility to Protect Approach: A Solution to Civilian Insecurity in Darfur”, Human Security Journal, C. 7: 46-60.
24. Paris, Roland (2014), “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention”, International Peacekeeping, C. 21, S. 5: 569-603.
25. Peltonen, Hannes (2011), “Sovereignty as Responsibility, Responsibility to Protect and International Order: On Responsibility, Communal Crime Prevention and International Law”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, C. 7, S. 28: 59-81.
26. Schermers, Henry (2002), “Different Aspects of Sovereignty”, (Ed. G. Kreijen), State, Sovereignty, and International Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 185-192.
27. Schouenborg, Laust (2012), The Scandinavian International Society: Primary Institutions and Binding Forces, 1815-2010, Londra: Routledge.
28. Sue, Henry (1980), Basic Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29. Telli, Azime (2012), “İnsani Müdahaleden Koruma Sorumluluğuna Geçiş: Eski Sorun, Yeni Kavram”, NEÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, C. 1. , S. 2: 206-220.
30. Thakur, Ramesh (2011), The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws, and The Use Of Force In International Politics, Londra: Routledge.
31. Thakur, Ramesh (2013), “R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers”, The Washington Quarterly, C.36, S. 2: 61-76.
32. United Nations, “2005 World Summit Outcome Document”, A/RES/60/1, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 02/04/2019).
33. United Nations, Secretary-General Report “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, A/63/677, https://undocs.org/A/63/677 (Erişim Tarihi 02/04/2019).
34. United Nations, Secretary-General Report, The Responsibility to Protect, Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, A/57/303. https://undocs.org/A/57/303, (Erişim Tarihi 02/01/2019).
35. Vincent, R. J. (1995), Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Waltz, Kenneth (2000), “Structural Realism After the Cold War”, International Security, C. 25, S. 1: 5-41.
37. Watson, Adam (2002), The Evolution of International Society, Londra: Routledge.
38. Wheeler, Nicholas (2000), Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Wheeler, Nicholas; Dunne, Tim (1998), “Hedley Bull and the Idea of a Universal Moral Community: Fictional, Primordial or Imagined?”, (Ed. Barbara. A. Roberson.), International Society and The Development of International Relations Theory, Londra: Pinter: 43-58.
40. Wight, Martin (1978), Power Politics, Londra: Continuum.
41. Wight, Martin (1991), International Theory The Three Traditions, Leicester: Leicester University Press.