From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect: Between Ethics and Realpolitik

Öz

This article examines the evolution of humanitarian intervention into the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by focusing on its ethical foundations and political realities that surround its implementation. While post-Cold War optimism anticipated a more peaceful international order, the persistence of mass atrocity crimes challenged the global community to respond and gave rise to the contested practices of humanitarian intervention, triggering the search for a new normative ground in the form of R2P. Based on the just war tradition, the article analyzes core ethical principles as applied to R2P, which include just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, proportionality, last resort, and reasonable prospect of success. Demonstrating how moral imperatives may often collide with geopolitical interests, the article concludes that R2P represents a significant innovation in the international normative order, but, in practice, when confronted with the interests of powerful states, its ethical foundations become fragile.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intervention
• Ethics
• Humanitarian intervention
• Responsibility to Protect.

İnsani Müdahaleden Koruma Sorumluluğuna: Etik ile Gerçekçilik Arasında

Öz

Bu makale, insani müdahaleden Koruma Sorumluluğu (R2P) doktrinine evrimi, etik temellerine ve uygulanmasını çevreleyen real-politik ortama odaklanarak incelemektedir. Soğuk Savaş sonrası iyimserlik daha barışçıl bir uluslararası düzen öngörürken, kitlesel vahşet suçlarının devam etmesi küresel toplumu buna bir karşılık üretmeye zorlamış ve sonuçta insani müdahalenin tartışmalı uygulamalarına yol açarak R2P biçimine evrilen bir normatif zemin arayışını tetiklemiştir. Makale, adil savaş geleneğine dayanarak, R2P’de uygulanan temel etik ilkeleri, yani meşru neden, doğru niyet, meşru otorite, orantılılık, son çare ve başarı için makul beklenti ilkelerini analiz etmektedir. Ahlaki zorunlulukların genellikle jeopolitik çıkarlarla çelişebileceğini gösteren makale, R2P’nin uluslararası normatif düzende önemli bir yeniliği temsil ettiğini tespit etmekte, ancak uygulamada, güçlü devletlerin çıkarlarıyla karşılaştığında etik temellerinin kırılgan hale geldiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Müdahale
• Etik
• İnsani Müdahale
• Koruma Sorumluluğu.

Kaynakça

1. Bull, H. (1984). Introduction. In H. Bull (Ed.), Intervention in world politics. Oxford University Press.
2. Crossley, N. (2018). Is R2P still controversial? Continuity and change in the debate on ‘humanitarian intervention’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(5), 415-436.
3. Daalder, I. H., & Stavridis, J. (2012). NATO’s victory in Libya: The right way to run an intervention. Foreign Affairs, 91(2), 2–7.
4. Dagi, D. (2021). Revisiting the Libya Intervention and the Idea(l) of responsibility to protect. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 20(2), 127-135.
5. Doyle, M. W. (2011). International ethics and the responsibility to protect. International Studies Review, 13(1), 72–84.
6. Evans, G. (2015). The limits of sovereignty: The case of mass atrocity crimes. PRISM, 5(3), 73–87.
7. Falk, R. (2011, October 26). Libya after Qaddafi. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/libya-after-qaddafi/
8. Gilbert, M. (2007, January 31). The terrible 20th century. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-terrible-20th-century/article17990016/

9. Hehir, A. (2024). The responsibility to protect debate: an enduring black hole. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 18(2), 205-210.
10. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). The responsibility to protect. International Development Research Centre.
11. Jackson, R. (1990). Quasi-states: Sovereignty, international relations and the Third World. Cambridge University Press.
12. Knudsen, T. B. (1997). Humanitarian intervention revisited: Post-Cold War responses to classical problems. In M. Pugh (Ed.), The UN, peace and force (pp. 146–165). Frank Cass.
13. Murphy, S. D. (1996). Humanitarian intervention: The United Nations in an evolving world order. University of Pennsylvania Press.
14. Pattison, J. (2010). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: Who should intervene? Oxford University Press.
15. Pattison, J. (2011). The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679411000283
16. Prat, L., & Saxon, Z. (2015). From cause to responsibility: R2P as a modern just war. The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, 17(1), 141–165.
17. Ralph, J. (2018). What should be done? Pragmatic constructivist ethics and the responsibility to protect. International Organization, 72(1), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818317000470
18. Rodogno, D. (2012). Against massacre: Humanitarian interventions in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press.
19. The Independent International Commission on Kosovo. (2000). The Kosovo report. Oxford University Press.
20. United Nations. (2000). We the peoples: The role of United Nations in the 21st century. United Nations.
21. United Nations. (2004). A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. United Nations.
22. United Nations Security Council. (1992). Resolution 794. United Nations.
23. United Nations Security Council. (2006). Resolution 1674. United Nations.
24. United Nations Security Council. (2011). Resolution 1973. United Nations.
25. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (3rd ed.). Basic Books.
26. Weiss, T. G. (2007). Humanitarian intervention. Polity Press.
27. Weiss, T. G., & Collins, C. (1996). Humanitarian challenges and intervention: World politics and dilemmas of help. Westview Press.
28. Welsh, J. M. (Ed.). (2004). “Introduction.” Humanitarian intervention and international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford University Press.
30. Ziegler, C. E. (2016). Contesting the responsibility to protect. International Studies Perspectives, 17(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekv008