World order refers to the peace and security within and between nations, upholding human rights and achieving a balance of power between nations. Although state sovereignty has been effective in achieving inter-state world order, there is an increasing level of intra-state conflict, leading to the revaluation of the absolute authority of state sovereignty. As a result, consideration has been placed on the role of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and support is growing for a ‘bona fide’ humanitarian intervention approach to maintaining world order where human rights have been breached. In order for world order to be maintained, the two pillars of world order, R2P and state sovereignty must be carefully balanced.
The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect was accepted by the United Nations (UN) at the World Summit in 2005, after being criticised for failing to respond to the abuse of citizens in Rwanda. There are three aspects to R2P: a nation state has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, the international community has the responsibility to assist nation states in protecting their citizens, and, when a nation state has failed in protecting its citizens, the international community has the responsibility to assist nation states in protecting its citizens. The jurisdiction of R2P reflects that of the ICC, covering genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
R2P plays a critical role in preventing the breakdown of intra-state peace, which may lead to intra-state conflict. The effectiveness of this doctrine relies heavily on international cooperation and compliance as seen in France’s “Operation Unicorn” in the Ivory Coast and the “no-fly zone” in Libya. Unfortunately, where there is a lack of international compliance, R2P is ineffective, leading to intra-state conflict and abuses in human rights. This is evident in the geopolitical case of the brutality of the Syrian regime and the Islamist militant movement in Pakistan. Journalist...