Responsibility to Protect as a Primary Institution of the International Society: Libya Case

Öz

Koruma Sorumluluğu Raporu’nun 2005 yılında Birleşmiş Milletler Zirvesi’nde kabulü, uluslararası toplumda vahşet suçlarının önlenmesi ve bu suçlar yüzünden acı çeken sivil halkların haklarının korunması bakımlarından önemli bir adım olmuştur. Bu gelişme, kimi Ingiliz Okulu düşünürlerine göre, uluslararası toplumun dayanışmayıcılığa doğru değişime uğradığı, bu sayede Koruma Sorumluluğu’nun devletler toplumu tarafından içselleştirilerek birincil kurumlardan biri olacağı şeklinde değerlendirilmiştir. Ancak, Myanmar, Roginya ve daha pek çok ülkede tanık olunan vahşet suçlarına karşı sergilenen uluslararası pratikler ve yaklaşımlar, Koruma Sorumluluğu’nun henüz üyeleri tarafından uluslararası toplumunu bekasının temel direği olarak algılanmadığını göstermektedir. Libya müdahalesi, uluslararası toplumun özellikleri temelinde, Koruma Sorumluluğu’nun uygulanmasındaki ikilemleri açığa çıkarmak üzere örneklendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ingiliz Okulu teorisi
• uluslararası toplum
• Koruma Sorumluluğu
• birincil kurumlar
• Libya müdahalesi
• insancıl müdahale

Responsibility to Protect as a Primary Institution of the International Society: Libya Case

Öz

The adoption of the Responsibility to Protect Report in 2005 by the UN Summit was a promising step forward for the evolution of the international society in terms of prevention of mass atrocity crimes and the protection of the civilian people's rights suffering from these tragedies. For some, this move was/is a sign showing the transformation of the international society towards a solidarist one where the R2P would be widely internalized as one of the primary institutions of the society of states. Nevertheless, as the contemporary international practices and approaches against mass atrocity crimes in Myanmar, Rohingya like in many places around the world shows that the members of the international society do not consider the R2P as a main pillar for the survival of the international society. Libya case will show us the dilemma on the implementation of the R2P based on the features of the international society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• English School theory
• international society
• Responsibility to Protect
• primary institutions
• Libya intervention
• humanitarian intervention

Kaynakça

1. Ainley, Kirsten. ‘The responsibility to protect and the International Criminal Court: counteracting the crisis.’ International Affairs, 91: I (2015), p.37-40.
2. Bellamy, Alex. ‘Humanitarian Responsibilities and Interventionist Claims in International Society’, Review of International Studies, vol 29, No 3, (Jul. 2003).
3. Bundegaard, Christian. ‘The Normative Divide in International Relations.’ DIIS Working Paper, 2010:27.
4. Bull, Hedley. ‘The Grotian Conception of International Society.’ In Diplomatic Investigations, edited by Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield.
5. Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, (London: Macmillan, 1977). Bull, Hedley. Adam Watson, ‘Introduction.” In Expansion of International Society, edited by Bull and Watson, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).
6. Buzan, Barry. From International to World Society: English School Theory and Social Structure of Globalization, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
7. Dunne, Tim. ‘The English School.’ In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, Steve Smith, , pp. 144-5, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
8. Dunne, Tim. ‘System, state and society: How does it all hang together?.’ Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 2005, vol. 34, No. 1, p. 160.

9. Finnemore, Martha. Sikkink, Katherine. ‘International norm dynamics and political change.’ International Organization, 52/4, 1998, pp. 887-917.
10. Gallagher, Adrian. Hunt, Charles T. Jacob, Cecilia. ‘Editorial: A New Era of GR2P’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 12 (2020), pp. 5-6.
11. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, R2P Monitor, Issue 52, 15 July 2020, p. 18, available at: { http://www.globalr2p.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/R2P_Monitor_JULY2020_Final.pdf}, accessed on 29 July 2020.
12. Hehir, Aidan. Pattison, James. ‘Introduction: The Responsibility to Protect after the Arab Spring.’ Cooperation and Conflict, 2016, Vol. 51(2), pp. 141-2.
13. Hehir, Aidan. The Responsibility to Protect (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012).
14. Knudsen, Tonny Brems. ‘Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Solidarist architecture’, in International Organization in the Anarchical Society, edited by T. B. Knudsen and C. Navari (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
15. Linklater, Andrew. Suganami, Hidemi. The English School of international relations: A contemporary reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
16. Megerisi, Tarek. ‘Libya's Global Civil War’, Policy Brief, European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2019.
17. Mills, Kurt. ‘R2P and the ICC: at odds or in sync?’ Criminal Law Forum, 26(1), 2015, 73-4.
18. Percy, Sarah. ‘Mercenaries: Strong norm, weak law.’ International Organization, 61/2, 2007, pp. 367-397.
19. Ralph, Jason. Gallagher, Adrian. ‘Legitimacy fault lines in international society: The responsibility to protect and prosecute after Libya.’ Review of International Studies, February 2015, pp. 6-7.
20. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, December 2001, p. 32, available at: { http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf}, accessed on 16 September 2020.
21. Turkmen, Fusun. ‘From Libya to Syria: The Rise and Fall of Humanitarian Intervention?.’ 2014 ACUNS Annual Meeting, 19-21 June 2014, Istanbul, pp. 4-6.
22. Walling, Carrie Booth. All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013).
23. Welsh, Jennifer M. ‘Norm contestation and the Responsibility to Protect.’ Global Responsibility to Protect, 5 (2013), p. 369.