1 00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:07,170 But now let's start with our speaker this week. I am happy to have our speaker join me here. 2 00:00:07,950 --> 00:00:12,240 She has been a diplomat for the last six years and she's also an international lawyer. 3 00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:19,200 This segment of today is also run in conjunction with the Oxford Institute of Ethics, Law and Conflict. 4 00:00:19,230 --> 00:00:22,020 And this is where her background fits in as well. 5 00:00:23,460 --> 00:00:29,720 As I said, she's a lawyer in the International Institutions and Security Policy Team of the Legal Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 6 00:00:30,090 --> 00:00:35,220 And during her career at the FCO, she has moved between legal and policy roles, 7 00:00:35,700 --> 00:00:41,730 and she's recently just returned from spending three years at the UK mission to the United Nations and in New York. 8 00:00:42,030 --> 00:00:47,550 And there she was working. She was heading the UN Peacekeeping, Conflict Prevention and Human Rights. 9 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:51,390 She's also teaching at the Diplomatic Academy. 10 00:00:52,110 --> 00:00:57,740 So she has kind of a background which combines academia with policy and legal issues. 11 00:00:57,750 --> 00:01:05,510 And today she's going to speak about the responsibility to protect on its 10th anniversary point of collapse or resurgence place. 12 00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:13,240 And thank you so much for that very kind introduction. 13 00:01:13,900 --> 00:01:19,630 It's an absolute honour to be here today and I'm very grateful for the invitation. 14 00:01:19,870 --> 00:01:31,630 I studied at Keble as an undergrad, so I've got many happy memories which pave the streets as well as some unpleasant ones at various crises and say, 15 00:01:31,900 --> 00:01:38,140 I just want to make clear before I begin that I'm not speaking today in my professional capacity. 16 00:01:38,740 --> 00:01:41,230 I'm speaking purely in a personal capacity. 17 00:01:41,470 --> 00:01:50,220 And my comments should be attributed to or understood as representing the policy positions or otherwise of HMG. 18 00:01:50,290 --> 00:01:59,410 So that very legal disclaimer and the topic that I'm going to speak about today is the responsibility to protect. 19 00:01:59,740 --> 00:02:07,809 And specifically, I'm going to pose and then seek to answer the question of whether on its 10th anniversary OTP, 20 00:02:07,810 --> 00:02:12,340 as it's commonly known, is at the point of collapse or resurgence. 21 00:02:13,780 --> 00:02:23,560 I think it's significant that this year marks not only ten years since Atp's formal conception and unanimous endorsement by U.N. member states, 22 00:02:24,250 --> 00:02:31,750 but it's also 70 years since the United Nations itself was founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. 23 00:02:33,070 --> 00:02:36,790 There's not only real symbolism in these overlapping anniversaries, 24 00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:42,669 but I think there's also a political impact to call significance due to the entwined goals, 25 00:02:42,670 --> 00:02:49,090 challenges and trajectories of the UN as an international organisation and the 26 00:02:49,090 --> 00:02:54,160 doctrine of ATP operating or trying to operate and function well within it. 27 00:02:55,450 --> 00:03:01,299 A critical shared challenge that they have is the somewhat messy business of trying to translate 28 00:03:01,300 --> 00:03:08,740 their noble aspirations into political will and real world action in order to save lives. 29 00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:19,540 So in the course of this lecture, I'm going to try and explore how ATP has transitioned from an intellectual concept and steps out of the 30 00:03:19,540 --> 00:03:29,379 pages of the 2005 outcome documents and began interacting with and colliding with UN diplomats of the 31 00:03:29,380 --> 00:03:35,080 UN protection agendas and the geopolitical interests of the permanent five members of the Security 32 00:03:35,080 --> 00:03:41,680 Council who are ultimately responsible as a default position for enforcing the responsibility to protect. 33 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:48,760 Now broadly, I'm going to divide my walk into three parts. 34 00:03:49,090 --> 00:03:57,820 Firstly, I'm going to try and set out in general terms what the responsibility to protect is, where it came from, and what its nature is. 35 00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:05,110 Secondly, assessed against these aspirations, I'm going to assess some of its successes and failures. 36 00:04:05,950 --> 00:04:14,200 Thirdly, I'm going to situate OCP in its rightful context in the broader U.N. and international system and in the round. 37 00:04:14,200 --> 00:04:20,230 Seek to answer my question of whether it is indeed now at the point of collapse or resurgence. 38 00:04:21,850 --> 00:04:25,810 So what is the responsibility to protect and where did it come from? 39 00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:35,979 Well, there's a long and short version of this. The short version is that OCP emerged directly as a result of the abject failure of the 40 00:04:35,980 --> 00:04:43,060 international community to stop the genocide in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s. 41 00:04:43,900 --> 00:04:51,130 In Rwanda, it's estimated that around 800,000 people died over the course of 100 days. 42 00:04:53,320 --> 00:05:02,830 The U.N. Security Council to this day. And indeed, last year when I was still there, still recalls these most stains on its record. 43 00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:06,970 And this led to the secretary general of the time, Kofi Annan, 44 00:05:07,150 --> 00:05:14,380 calling for the need for a new international response to massive intrastate human rights violations. 45 00:05:15,430 --> 00:05:24,930 So in response to this call, the Canadian government established an International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, ICRC. 46 00:05:25,360 --> 00:05:34,300 This is co-chaired by Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister, sometimes known as the intellectual father of RTP. 47 00:05:35,470 --> 00:05:44,799 Now essentially what this report entitled and the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty did was to 48 00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:54,820 try and make palatable to states who are deeply suspicious of humanitarian intervention or indeed any interference with state sovereignty, 49 00:05:55,360 --> 00:06:00,160 and to try and re-imagine intervention or reconceptualize it. 50 00:06:00,490 --> 00:06:07,420 So it wasn't the scary sounding intervention, but rather something of a moral responsibility to act. 51 00:06:09,820 --> 00:06:16,990 So the U.N. version of responsibility to protect directly borrowed this term of responsibility. 52 00:06:17,230 --> 00:06:20,590 And the concept is built around this moral foundation. 53 00:06:22,150 --> 00:06:27,040 The formal birth of the U.N. concept of OTP was in 2005, 54 00:06:27,280 --> 00:06:33,030 when it was unanimously agreed and endorsed by all U.N. member states in the UN World 55 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:38,650 Summit Outcome Document and adopted by consensus in a General Assembly resolution. 56 00:06:39,910 --> 00:06:46,420 Essentially, this marked Atp's emergence from a concept largely owned by the academic intellectual 57 00:06:46,420 --> 00:06:51,790 community into the high level political arena and diplomatic discourse. 58 00:06:54,560 --> 00:07:01,250 So focusing on what ATP is, essentially, it's composed of three pillars. 59 00:07:02,300 --> 00:07:11,660 Pillar one is the concept that each state has a responsibility to protect its own populations from for RTP crimes, 60 00:07:11,660 --> 00:07:16,940 namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. 61 00:07:18,470 --> 00:07:26,990 The second pillar of RTP P in tells the nation that the international community should assist states in discharging their responsibility. 62 00:07:27,170 --> 00:07:29,930 It's essentially a capacity building pillar. 63 00:07:31,130 --> 00:07:40,370 The third pillar of RTP and the most controversial given that it can entail in the last resort military intervention, 64 00:07:41,780 --> 00:07:45,950 suggests that the international community, through the United Nations, 65 00:07:46,220 --> 00:07:49,970 has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, 66 00:07:49,970 --> 00:07:58,880 humanitarian and other means in accordance with the UN Charter to help protect populations from these mass atrocity crimes. 67 00:07:59,480 --> 00:08:09,050 Should the State immediately responsible manifestly fail in its responsibility to discharge this obligation? 68 00:08:10,750 --> 00:08:22,600 Now I think it's useful to reflect on the exact wording of RTP and the World Summit document in trying to assess what Atp's exact nature is. 69 00:08:22,900 --> 00:08:33,160 This has been the cause of much debate. The parameters of this debate as to what sort of beast is RTP sort of go along a sliding 70 00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:40,390 normative scale with one end people suggesting perhaps the responsibility to protect 71 00:08:40,690 --> 00:08:48,009 or certainly its its third pillar consists of a legal obligation for the Security Council 72 00:08:48,010 --> 00:08:53,740 to intervene should the primary state responsible fail to protect its population. 73 00:08:53,980 --> 00:09:00,430 So we have a legal obligation or potentially evolving legal norm at one end, at the other end. 74 00:09:00,460 --> 00:09:08,470 OTP has somewhat rudely been dismissed as a mere gimmick or a slogan having no normative impact at all. 75 00:09:09,820 --> 00:09:20,140 I've got two main reflections about this approach. Firstly, the responsibility to protect in terms of its third pillar. 76 00:09:20,410 --> 00:09:27,850 It's not a legal obligation, and I'm not actually sure that its value lies in its emerging as such. 77 00:09:28,540 --> 00:09:31,390 The responsibility to protect didn't change the law. 78 00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:40,120 The first pillar reflects existing legal obligations that states owe their populations under international human rights law. 79 00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:43,210 International humanitarian law. International criminal law. 80 00:09:43,720 --> 00:09:54,160 No one was suggesting before OTP was coined that states could perpetrate mass atrocities or fail to respect the human rights of their own populations. 81 00:09:56,110 --> 00:10:04,360 Also, I think it's good and important to note that RTP didn't address unilateral military humanitarian intervention. 82 00:10:04,660 --> 00:10:12,790 It only conceived of potential military action through the existing United Nations Security Council. 83 00:10:13,630 --> 00:10:21,190 It wasn't an absence of law which prevented the Council from taking action to stop the genocide in Rwanda or Srebrenica. 84 00:10:21,580 --> 00:10:29,140 It had well-established power, legal powers, which it could hope to use under Chapter seven of the UN Charter. 85 00:10:31,300 --> 00:10:37,190 My second reflection, and it might be a bit controversial for me as an international lawyer to see this and 86 00:10:37,210 --> 00:10:44,110 is I think all watchers obsess a little bit too much about its exact normative status. 87 00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:49,870 Is they this is somehow the key to its success in getting relevant decision makers to act. 88 00:10:51,040 --> 00:10:56,800 I think these people and they proceed on the assumption that if something is considered law, 89 00:10:57,040 --> 00:11:04,510 it's more likely to be complied with or if there is a permissive basis for legal action, then that will happen. 90 00:11:06,070 --> 00:11:15,490 But we've seen from the case of Rwanda and Srebrenica, there were legal powers to act, but they weren't they weren't used. 91 00:11:16,060 --> 00:11:23,709 And likewise, I think we can contrast Kosovo, where a number of states in the international community, 92 00:11:23,710 --> 00:11:28,870 including those who participated in the intervention in Kosovo, 93 00:11:29,080 --> 00:11:34,820 they actually didn't think that they had a legal basis for action, but they did have a moral pull. 94 00:11:36,310 --> 00:11:44,500 And indeed, the Kosovo commission, which looked at the legal basis or otherwise for action after the events reached the conclusion, 95 00:11:44,620 --> 00:11:54,130 which is not the UK official position, and that the action in Kosovo was not lawful but it was legitimate. 96 00:11:54,760 --> 00:11:59,890 And I think that's a really interesting theme in the sphere of international law and international relations. 97 00:12:00,100 --> 00:12:03,970 There's tension between that law and legitimacy and that overlap. 98 00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:14,860 So my conclusion here is that I don't think we need to fuss about atp's an exact normative nature. 99 00:12:15,070 --> 00:12:18,490 And particularly we don't need to focus in on whether it's changing the law. 100 00:12:18,610 --> 00:12:25,270 I don't think it is. Rather, I think what OTP was designed to do, or the best thing it has to offer us, 101 00:12:25,570 --> 00:12:34,180 was to provide additional moral and political impetus for the Security Council to use the legal powers it already has to take action. 102 00:12:36,460 --> 00:12:44,260 So in short, I see Ottps body flying more as a global governance or international legitimacy movement. 103 00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:49,389 And having worked at the UN, I can tell you that diplomats in the States, 104 00:12:49,390 --> 00:12:54,100 they do care about whether their positions are perceived as legitimate or not. 105 00:12:54,670 --> 00:13:03,130 The UN is a forum in which issues are debated and contested in terms of their legitimacy or otherwise. 106 00:13:04,870 --> 00:13:09,640 So I think the final brief question is the pragmatic policymaker. 107 00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:14,110 Diplomats warn of does it matter what kind of beast RTP is? 108 00:13:14,380 --> 00:13:19,120 And as I've said, I actually don't think it always necessarily does, 109 00:13:19,450 --> 00:13:28,180 so long as it generates that necessary sense that something must be done and something is ultimately done to stop mass atrocity crimes, 110 00:13:28,540 --> 00:13:35,380 and that the intervention is loyal to the objectives, its intent as it is intended to serve. 111 00:13:37,090 --> 00:13:45,130 So in addressing the question of Atp's nature, I've already partially answered the question of what OCP was designed to achieve. 112 00:13:46,060 --> 00:13:51,280 And I think the best answer is that it's a global governance, international legitimacy norm, 113 00:13:51,490 --> 00:13:56,290 which is meant to exert influence on relevant decision makers to act. 114 00:13:57,550 --> 00:14:06,310 But it would be remiss of me not to point out that some OCP advocates have far higher expectations of RTP. 115 00:14:07,390 --> 00:14:09,190 I mentioned just two criteria. 116 00:14:10,330 --> 00:14:21,430 I think some OCP advocates hoped that RTP would actually influence policy prescriptions of how the council should act when confronted with RTP cases. 117 00:14:22,060 --> 00:14:30,280 And secondly, that this would lead to consistent, concrete action by the political base that is the U.N. Security Council. 118 00:14:31,690 --> 00:14:38,400 In my view, the most wildly divergent views about what responsibility to protect life trajectory. 119 00:14:38,560 --> 00:14:40,930 This question of whether it's at the point of collapse, 120 00:14:40,930 --> 00:14:46,630 failure or somewhere in between arises because of these very different starting points and expectations. 121 00:14:48,690 --> 00:14:58,020 So meeting now it's a part two of my lecture having regard to these different goals for RTP. 122 00:14:58,470 --> 00:15:04,650 I'm going to see where it lies on the trajectory of potential collapse or resurgence. 123 00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:14,580 Let's reflect first on its achievements. I think that readily we can identify two key achievements of OCP as a global governance loom. 124 00:15:15,930 --> 00:15:24,480 Firstly, from 2005 to 2015, states are broadly maintained, at least at a formal consensus, 125 00:15:24,840 --> 00:15:28,650 through their verbal commitment to the responsibility to protect, 126 00:15:29,010 --> 00:15:33,120 including states in the Global North and the Global South, 127 00:15:33,360 --> 00:15:43,740 where the Global South was far more suspicious of OCP as a concept and worry that it would be used as a fig leaf for imperial intervention. 128 00:15:43,950 --> 00:15:51,749 OCP would be masquerading as something it was not, and since 2006, 129 00:15:51,750 --> 00:15:58,200 OCP has been referenced and in some form reaffirmed in over 25 U.N. Security Council resolutions, 130 00:15:58,500 --> 00:16:03,270 six presidential statements, as well as General Assembly resolutions. 131 00:16:03,540 --> 00:16:13,950 So on that level, it's quite hard to see that Ottps at the point of collapse if states and diplomats keep referencing it in these council and attacks. 132 00:16:15,870 --> 00:16:23,280 Secondly, in terms of what it's achieved. OCP has become firmly institutionalised within the United Nations system. 133 00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:30,090 Its normative framework is actually generated a physical one for international decision making. 134 00:16:31,440 --> 00:16:36,900 Jennifer Welsh, the Secretary General Special Advisor on OCP, very much exists. 135 00:16:37,290 --> 00:16:43,290 I watched on YouTube the other day and this is not on the point of collapse in any sense. 136 00:16:43,950 --> 00:16:53,040 And indeed, responsibility to protect has spawned an entire industry of OCP, NGOs, state focal points and even a group of friends. 137 00:16:54,480 --> 00:16:59,190 There are also few general annual reports on how to operationalise, 138 00:16:59,430 --> 00:17:07,500 responsibility to protect and interactive dialogues with states expressing their views on an annual basis. 139 00:17:07,890 --> 00:17:15,030 So essentially, I think this extensive OCP activity demonstrates that OCP remains alive and 140 00:17:15,030 --> 00:17:20,640 well as an active part of international political and diplomatic discourse. 141 00:17:23,060 --> 00:17:34,520 But then Ottps naysayers may say, Well, that's all very well, but RTP is part of UN diplomatic discourse, the diplomatic talking shop. 142 00:17:34,910 --> 00:17:38,720 But it actually led to any action. Has it saved any lives? 143 00:17:40,010 --> 00:17:43,370 My argument is that from 2005. 144 00:17:43,610 --> 00:17:50,270 Responsibility to protect its substance, whether formally labelled as OTP or not, 145 00:17:50,450 --> 00:18:00,110 has at least been a factor in generating the political and moral momentum which has led to action in some OTP situations. 146 00:18:01,250 --> 00:18:14,060 To take one example from Africa in 2006, OTP was specifically referenced and namechecked in the preamble paragraph of Resolution 1786, 147 00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:19,340 which authorised the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to Darfur. 148 00:18:20,840 --> 00:18:30,110 Furthermore, the Council also referred to OTP in the round when it referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC. 149 00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:40,550 So arguably OTP was part of the normative backdrop which was leading to an increased council focus on criminal accountability. 150 00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:49,660 But the most often cited example about tips to test case for TP was that of Libya. 151 00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:58,660 When the Security Council, in the face of atrocities committed and threatened to continue being committed by the Gadhafi regime. 152 00:18:59,080 --> 00:19:08,290 Authorise a Chapter seven military intervention. The Libya intervention was heralded by RTP advocates at the time as the coming 153 00:19:08,290 --> 00:19:14,020 of age of the previously intellectual concept of responsibility to protect. 154 00:19:15,130 --> 00:19:24,190 In fact, Gareth Evans described it as a textbook case of the RTP informing the OttpN on working exactly as it was supposed to. 155 00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:34,760 Frankly, with hindsight, the staging of the Libyan intervention as an exercise of about P was possibly ill advised. 156 00:19:34,780 --> 00:19:39,700 I don't think anyone would have known this. It was possibly, with hindsight, ill advised, 157 00:19:39,700 --> 00:19:46,630 because the action in Libya became to be associated with allegations of unlawful 158 00:19:46,810 --> 00:19:54,670 regime change effected under the cloak of OCP and Security Council Resolution 1973. 159 00:19:56,680 --> 00:20:03,520 So in short, whilst Libya occurred and was cited as Atp's operational highpoint, 160 00:20:03,910 --> 00:20:12,070 it then arguably led to its current operational low points and arguable collapse in Syria. 161 00:20:14,230 --> 00:20:18,580 But before meeting one to examine the peace Libya legacy, 162 00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:29,560 I think we should reflect a bit more on the resolution which was held up as being the first test case of OCP to examine whether it really was. 163 00:20:30,190 --> 00:20:41,320 And it's notable that this Security Council resolution in the preamble paragraph, it acknowledged that an key crime may have been committed, 164 00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:48,640 and it referred to Palawan, the responsibility of Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population. 165 00:20:49,270 --> 00:20:51,700 But what the resolution didn't say in the preamble, 166 00:20:52,090 --> 00:20:58,750 which is the part where sometimes diplomats put things which can't be agreed as part of the operational part. 167 00:20:59,380 --> 00:21:12,340 None of the resolution referred to the military intervention as an exercise of the Security Council's responsibility to protect the third pillar. 168 00:21:12,730 --> 00:21:18,460 Instead, classic Chapter seven military authorisation language was used. 169 00:21:20,220 --> 00:21:27,210 So was it a case of ACP or not having hypocritically engaged in that analysis? 170 00:21:27,520 --> 00:21:35,940 And I do think that there's a risk of even obsessing about whether Libya was a true indication with cast of OTP at all. 171 00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:42,930 After all, there is no authoritative decision maker who gets to judge whether it really was OTP or not. 172 00:21:43,830 --> 00:21:50,700 I think maybe what's more interesting about this resolution is that it wasn't unanimously adopted. 173 00:21:50,910 --> 00:21:56,850 And I think this still reflects some of the tensions operating between the global north and south. 174 00:21:58,500 --> 00:22:06,720 Notably, it received ten positive votes in, five abstentions from Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia. 175 00:22:07,530 --> 00:22:15,960 I think it's also highly notable that Brazil, India, Germany are all seeking permanent seats on a reformed Security Council. 176 00:22:16,440 --> 00:22:20,249 And I'm just going to leave that thought hanging there and pick it up later when I might 177 00:22:20,250 --> 00:22:26,670 offer some reflections on this may mean for Atp's future or certainly its pointy edge, 178 00:22:28,080 --> 00:22:35,640 the third pillar. So now moving on to our tips post Libya life trajectory. 179 00:22:36,660 --> 00:22:42,570 There is a simplistic, superficial analysis which sees that essentially peace Libya. 180 00:22:42,990 --> 00:22:53,020 The term ATP became so toxic in diplomatic U.N. circles that it essentially mocked R.I.P. RTP. 181 00:22:53,070 --> 00:22:59,880 That was the end of it. And now I think we need to be really careful about that narrative, 182 00:23:00,600 --> 00:23:07,890 because essentially it is one that certain states, including Russia, use to its advantage. 183 00:23:08,970 --> 00:23:20,850 Arguably, Russia is using alleged prior abuse of RTP as a fig leaf to shield itself the Assad regime and its geopolitical decisions, 184 00:23:21,300 --> 00:23:27,600 which mean that it has vetoed attempts to reach a solution in Syria. 185 00:23:28,290 --> 00:23:38,640 And these intentions run entirely contrary to basic principles of mankind and its responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council. 186 00:23:39,930 --> 00:23:48,120 Furthermore, somewhat cynically, states professing to be wary of OTP and its abuse aren't above flipping the principle 187 00:23:48,270 --> 00:23:53,850 on its head to justify spuriously blatant violations of international law. 188 00:23:55,020 --> 00:24:01,740 When I was at the council seeking to negotiate a conflict prevention resolution in August 2014, 189 00:24:02,430 --> 00:24:09,690 Russia actually welcomed and strengthened RTP language on conflict prevention and then 190 00:24:09,690 --> 00:24:17,730 invoked OTP in Security Council debates as a basis for a legally annexing Crimea. 191 00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:25,590 So at the same time as they were accusing others of abusing OTP and stating it was essentially dead, 192 00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:37,559 they were cynically arguably abusing it themselves. So I think what we need to do is assess altarpiece atp's piece Libya fait from a 193 00:24:37,560 --> 00:24:44,550 broader perspective and there is a clear counterweight to the whole tp IP narrative. 194 00:24:45,450 --> 00:24:53,160 Essentially, we have seen the council being able to take action in some of TP situations post Libya. 195 00:24:53,970 --> 00:25:02,190 One example is 2013, and following the new state of South Sudan's brutal descent into civil war, 196 00:25:02,430 --> 00:25:10,620 the Security Council reinforced the existing peacekeeping mission and reprioritize its mandate towards the protection of civilians. 197 00:25:12,540 --> 00:25:17,610 Also, in 2014, the Security Council, albeit not without delay, 198 00:25:17,880 --> 00:25:23,700 mandated a UN peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic to protect 199 00:25:23,700 --> 00:25:28,230 civilians following the country's descent into ethnic and sectarian violence. 200 00:25:28,950 --> 00:25:38,760 One commentator has even suggested that C.A.R. might even be a more pure form of RTP intervention, even if it wasn't badged as such. 201 00:25:39,090 --> 00:25:44,280 And this is due to the serious lack of strategic interest to use council members. 202 00:25:46,080 --> 00:25:53,250 So possibly, but for RTP and the acknowledgement of the moral stain and shame which flowed from 203 00:25:53,250 --> 00:25:59,400 failure to intervene in previous places which were of strategic interest to the Council, 204 00:25:59,610 --> 00:26:08,909 we can now see some sort of normative pool where the Security Council perhaps does feel morally obliged to intervene in some places, 205 00:26:08,910 --> 00:26:12,450 which aren't of strategic interest to him, to them, rather. 206 00:26:12,780 --> 00:26:16,290 Either way. So they have no impetus to block action. 207 00:26:16,830 --> 00:26:26,340 But. But for moral or ethical concerns, they have to have no great strategic interest in intervening to try and address the mass atrocity situations. 208 00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:35,190 So am I now going to proceed to you? 209 00:26:35,190 --> 00:26:45,690 And the third part of my lecture, which is situating ATP and its life trajectory in the broader context of the international system. 210 00:26:46,980 --> 00:26:57,430 I've got a few reflections. Firstly, I think that those that say ATP has no pull, it has no life left in it. 211 00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:06,420 And underestimating the impact the ATP has had in actually delegitimizing the council itself, 212 00:27:08,190 --> 00:27:14,250 I think it's helped delegitimize not just individual council blockages for action, 213 00:27:14,580 --> 00:27:20,760 but it's also brought into even sharper focus, long standing questions about the council's current composition, 214 00:27:20,970 --> 00:27:25,380 the continuation of the P5 veto power and council effectiveness. 215 00:27:26,640 --> 00:27:36,360 It's given status within the Council and outside it a moral lexicon to attack and classify lack of council action, 216 00:27:36,690 --> 00:27:44,460 which I think has played into this broader narrative and this big question that the UN itself faces on its 70th anniversary. 217 00:27:46,230 --> 00:27:53,850 Secondly, I think it's interesting to note that ATP occupies a very similar space to other UN protection agendas. 218 00:27:54,810 --> 00:28:00,830 There are a number of thematic agendas which occupy the same space at the Security Council, 219 00:28:00,840 --> 00:28:06,299 for example protection of civilians, children, armed conflict, conflict prevention. 220 00:28:06,300 --> 00:28:11,610 And many of these have the same physical structures, replicating the normative ones. 221 00:28:11,970 --> 00:28:17,520 And I really think there's actually a risk of them all conceptually collapsing into each other. 222 00:28:18,030 --> 00:28:22,260 Now, I'm raising the question as to whether that is problematic or not. 223 00:28:24,330 --> 00:28:30,479 Arguably, the continued value of each of these thematic agendas, including ATP, 224 00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:42,090 rests on them being well defined by way of illustration of how all these protection agendas are actually competing in the same space. 225 00:28:42,660 --> 00:28:46,950 In December 2013 on MIS, the UK, 226 00:28:46,950 --> 00:28:53,819 the UN rather peacekeeping mission in South Sudan opened its gates to shelter internally displaced 227 00:28:53,820 --> 00:29:01,730 people at risk when ethnic conflict broke out between different tribes within the UN system. 228 00:29:02,340 --> 00:29:07,290 Different thematic constituencies all claims that act as a fabric. 229 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:16,500 It was described as a case which demonstrated the productivity of rights up front. 230 00:29:16,800 --> 00:29:23,260 A new council or UN agenda which occupies the same space as RTP. 231 00:29:23,510 --> 00:29:33,060 Others said it was a key example of all others, that it was classic policy and in essence it was just the right and the humane thing to do. 232 00:29:34,440 --> 00:29:39,720 So maybe it doesn't matter if there's conceptual collapse between all of these agendas, 233 00:29:40,020 --> 00:29:48,720 but maybe it does because classification can also actually impact on resource flow where the money goes within the different UN system. 234 00:29:49,020 --> 00:29:52,260 And arguably you want to direct it to the most effective. 235 00:29:54,240 --> 00:29:59,790 But also, if you want practices such as that to become expected and generalised, 236 00:29:59,970 --> 00:30:05,850 maybe you do need to know what to call it so that you can call for it and get other 237 00:30:05,850 --> 00:30:12,120 constituencies to call for it so that political and moral momentum gathers to make it happen. 238 00:30:15,070 --> 00:30:24,399 So my final point, which brings me back to the question at the beginning and the situating about deep within the broader UN system is 239 00:30:24,400 --> 00:30:32,440 that I think ATP both encapsulates and also comes up against some of the key wider tensions existing at the UN, 240 00:30:32,620 --> 00:30:39,070 its collective security system, international law and geopolitics and the interplay between all of these. 241 00:30:42,350 --> 00:30:45,590 Now on its 70th anniversary. 242 00:30:45,740 --> 00:30:53,000 As I say, the U.N. is coming under increasing scrutiny and pressure and front and centre of the broader debate as to 243 00:30:53,000 --> 00:30:59,540 whether the U.N. is fit for purpose is whether the Security Council is failing in its primary responsibility, 244 00:30:59,540 --> 00:31:04,010 and that is the U.N. charter language to maintain international peace and security. 245 00:31:04,460 --> 00:31:07,490 And it's shameful, somewhat shameful at times. 246 00:31:07,490 --> 00:31:13,550 Ineffectiveness in preventing and halting mass atrocity crimes is front and centre of this debate. 247 00:31:14,030 --> 00:31:20,269 This is evidenced by the fact that there are three different initiatives going around 248 00:31:20,270 --> 00:31:25,940 diplomatic and U.N. circles at the moment aimed at restraining the use of the veto. 249 00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:37,520 In my view, this is a critical piece of evidence which shows that rather than being at the point of collapse, 250 00:31:37,760 --> 00:31:46,480 I would say Ottps actually on a positive upward trajectory in these initiatives, 251 00:31:46,490 --> 00:31:53,870 and there is a Frenchwoman as an apt one, as an issue from the Elders, which are aimed at constraining the veto. 252 00:31:54,020 --> 00:31:58,370 Responsibility to Protect is specifically mentioned in to these documents. 253 00:31:58,640 --> 00:32:08,900 So again, I would say that arguably this shows that the toxicity the brand of OCP had who's Libya is actually allaying somewhat. 254 00:32:09,650 --> 00:32:17,060 And that potentially should these attempts at constraining the video gather momentum and translate into practice, 255 00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:24,650 OCP will have more teeth than it actually did in 2005 when it was initially conceptualised. 256 00:32:27,800 --> 00:32:31,700 So I think my conclusion is pretty clear in very blunt terms. 257 00:32:31,970 --> 00:32:38,540 I would say happily that on its 10th anniversary, OTP is not at the point of collapse. 258 00:32:39,140 --> 00:32:45,500 It is at the point of resurgence. But obviously the picture is somewhat more complex than this. 259 00:32:45,950 --> 00:32:51,140 But in the round, I think it's shown itself to be a relatively robust and resilient, substantive norm, 260 00:32:51,440 --> 00:32:59,270 even if it has suffered brain damage along the way and hit operational rock bottom in Syria. 261 00:33:00,080 --> 00:33:06,620 But I think, as I said earlier, I think it's dangerous to blame RTP, 262 00:33:07,130 --> 00:33:13,790 a doctrine for geo strategic decisions of the permanent members of the Security Council. 263 00:33:14,450 --> 00:33:21,170 That is really to overstate what RTP was intended to do or what it could ever achieve. 264 00:33:23,670 --> 00:33:27,630 I'll finish on a final note with one reflection, and that's there. 265 00:33:27,660 --> 00:33:34,680 Whilst this lecture has focussed on the hard edge of responsibility to protect Pillar three, 266 00:33:34,890 --> 00:33:42,360 I don't want in any way to be understood and to constitute me advocating for military 267 00:33:42,360 --> 00:33:50,100 intervention as a political policy or legal solution in every complex case. 268 00:33:51,030 --> 00:33:54,900 Indeed, a key component of the Gareth Evans report, 269 00:33:55,830 --> 00:34:03,450 which is missing from the UN version of the ATP Doctrine, includes a concept of responsibility to rebuild. 270 00:34:04,710 --> 00:34:09,630 Now I think the international community has learnt or indeed learns forget, 271 00:34:09,630 --> 00:34:17,340 learns again that military intervention in and of itself can also be irresponsible if it is not properly, 272 00:34:17,430 --> 00:34:25,560 properly situated in a broader political process with a coherent and responsible host intervention plan. 273 00:34:26,520 --> 00:34:34,230 And while I don't think we necessarily need to amend the UN's Aatip concept to capture this, I really don't think it must be forgotten. 274 00:34:37,450 --> 00:34:40,780 So that signifies the end of my lecture. 275 00:34:40,960 --> 00:34:47,450 I would be very interested and in your views and to see whether you reach the same conclusions as me. 276 00:34:47,450 --> 00:34:50,590 And I think. And that's going to facilitate that discussion. 277 00:34:50,920 --> 00:35:02,790 Thank you very much. Thanks. I think it was fascinating talking about.