FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4379805993> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4379805993 endingPage "20" @default.
• W4379805993 startingPage "15" @default.
• W4379805993 abstract "Responsibility toProtect: fromConcept to Implementation Peter Power, TD Minister of State for Overseas Development at theDepartment ofForeign Affairs Chairman, distinguished guests, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this discussion on what is one of the leading challenges of our time? implementing and giving effect to the responsibility to protect, one of the most significant conceptual developments in international law and practice since the promulgation of theUnited Nations Charter in 1945. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the failure of the international community to protect vulnerable populations from mass atrocities has provoked horror, shame and remorse. The development of the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) cannot atone for past failures; but it can ensure that all stakeholders?governments and their leaders, the international community and the Security Council?are aware of their roles, obligations and responsibilities when faced with the threatof the four specific crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If applied correctly, theR2P doctrine can assist in prevention; facilitate a timely, coherent and effective international response if required; and ultimately act as a deterrent to the perpetuation of these crimes. R2P is firmly based on the evolving precepts of international humanitarian law, particularly the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.1 Conceptually, itoffers a new perspective on the relationship of the individual to the international order, formerly exclusively mediated by the state. Heads of state and government at the 2005 World Summit held at theUnited Nations inNew York unanimously agreed thatR2P rests on three pillars: * Address to the Royal Irish Academy CommitteeforInternational Affairsannual conference,entitled A responsibility toprotect?Sovereignty vs. intervention', Dublin, 21November 2008. irThe 'Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide' was approved on 9 December 1945by resolution260A(III) of the UN GeneralAssembly, and itenteredintoforceon 12 January 1951. The text of the convention is available at: http://www.unhchr.en/html/menu3/b/p_ genoci.htm (20 May 2009). The Rome Statute,which established and which now governs the International CriminalCourt, enteredintoforceon 1July2002. The textof thestatuteisavailable at: http://www2.icc-cpi.int/Menus/TC^ (20 May 2009). IrishStudies inInternational Affairs, Vol. 20 (2009), 15-20. doi: 10.3318ASIA.2009.20.15 16 Irish Studies inInternational Affairs (1) the responsibility of the state to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; (2) the responsibility of the international community to assist states in meeting theseobligations,includingthrough capacitybuilding;and (3) where states are manifestly failing to provide such protection, the responsibility of the international community to respond in a timely and decisive manner to ensure protection in accordance with international law, and in particular with theUN Charter.2 As these three pillars demonstrate, R2P is not a licence for interventionism, as is sometimes charged. It is a response that carefully places the primary responsibility on the state concerned in the first instance. EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF R2P The catalysts forR2P were the terrible events inRwanda and Bosnia. These came as ominous reminders of the potential for crimes against humanity in areas of fragility, ethnic tension and unresolved conflicts. Any casual student of history would know this of course. The surprise lay in the ineffectiveness of the international response. There seemed to be a fatal weakness in the system when itcame to giving effect to the post-World War II imperative of 'never again'. The weakness lay in the understandable deference toward the fundamental building block of the international order, the notion of the sovereignty of the nation-state. The question was how to balance this deference, quite legitimate for normal diplomatic relations, with the growing body of international and human-rights law and its attendant imperatives. The terrible events of the 1990s, then, forced the international community to face up to the apparent, and I stress the word apparent, conflict between respecting sovereignty and preventing crimes against humanity, like genocide. In short, the international community had to reconceptualise a notion of unfettered national sovereignty, which had its roots in theTreaty ofWestphalia in 1648.3 This process was, of course, complicated by the sensitivities ofmany decolonised states intent on guarding their new found sovereignty. It should be pointed out..." @default.
• W4379805993 created "2023-06-09" @default.
• W4379805993 creator A5074290342 @default.
• W4379805993 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W4379805993 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W4379805993 title "Responsibility to Protect: from Concept to Implementation" @default.
• W4379805993 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/isia.2009.a810315" @default.
• W4379805993 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W4379805993 type Work @default.
• W4379805993 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4379805993 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4379805993 hasAuthorship W4379805993A5074290342 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C195064531 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C204342414 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2776429423 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2776508615 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2777596936 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2778042224 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C2779872411 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C11413529 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C169437150 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C17744445 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C195064531 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C199539241 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C204342414 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2776211767 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2776429423 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2776508615 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2777596936 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2778042224 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C2779872411 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C41008148 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C48103436 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C55447825 @default.
• W4379805993 hasConceptScore W4379805993C94625758 @default.
• W4379805993 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4379805993 hasLocation W43798059931 @default.
• W4379805993 hasOpenAccess W4379805993 @default.
• W4379805993 hasPrimaryLocation W43798059931 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W1587207407 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2260049034 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2480225052 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2606163992 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2743727968 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2766415057 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W2915824129 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W3210337003 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W4285812079 @default.
• W4379805993 hasRelatedWork W69835429 @default.
• W4379805993 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W4379805993 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4379805993 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4379805993 workType "article" @default.