The "duty to protect" is a logical evolution of international law. However, it is not yet codified in a formal way.
As human beings, we should and do care about our fellow human beings. International law has evolved over time to try to find ways to minimize the harm nations do to each other. The principle of sovereignty is intended to prevent nations from harming people in other countries. Egregious violations occur, but overall, the situation post-1945 is vastly improved over the situation from 1800-1945.
The right to protect people within a country is the next logical step and was forseen in the creation of the United Nations. Under international law, the United Nations Security Council is supposed to be the approving body for actions of this kind.
Other than the UN charter, which is not very clear on this point, the international community has not agreed to a set of minimum human rights standards that countries must follow or face military intervention. Certainly the notion of a unilateral "duty to protect" is not supported in international law.
Nations make mistakes. I am of the position that nations should not be discouraged from doing the right thing in the present just because they have made mistakes in the past.
It is clear that there is an armed conflict in western Sudan, where the Janjaweed militia are attacking civilians with the support (money and weapons) of the Sudanese government. The African Union is already organizing a (small) UN-sponsored force to help stabilize the region (i.e. to protect civilians). If the West would take action to support the AU force, that would save lives.
We all have a moral compass in considering the acts and responsibilities of nations. Mine is the same as Thomas Jefferson's: lives first, freedom second, prosperity third.
If you don't like North American media, there are plenty of other sources. I follow BBC and Al-Jazeera, among others. Sometimes media gets clogged with propaganda, but if you follow a wide range of sources, truths still emerge.
no subject
As human beings, we should and do care about our fellow human beings. International law has evolved over time to try to find ways to minimize the harm nations do to each other. The principle of sovereignty is intended to prevent nations from harming people in other countries. Egregious violations occur, but overall, the situation post-1945 is vastly improved over the situation from 1800-1945.
The right to protect people within a country is the next logical step and was forseen in the creation of the United Nations. Under international law, the United Nations Security Council is supposed to be the approving body for actions of this kind.
Other than the UN charter, which is not very clear on this point, the international community has not agreed to a set of minimum human rights standards that countries must follow or face military intervention. Certainly the notion of a unilateral "duty to protect" is not supported in international law.
Nations make mistakes. I am of the position that nations should not be discouraged from doing the right thing in the present just because they have made mistakes in the past.
It is clear that there is an armed conflict in western Sudan, where the Janjaweed militia are attacking civilians with the support (money and weapons) of the Sudanese government. The African Union is already organizing a (small) UN-sponsored force to help stabilize the region (i.e. to protect civilians). If the West would take action to support the AU force, that would save lives.
We all have a moral compass in considering the acts and responsibilities of nations. Mine is the same as Thomas Jefferson's: lives first, freedom second, prosperity third.
If you don't like North American media, there are plenty of other sources. I follow BBC and Al-Jazeera, among others. Sometimes media gets clogged with propaganda, but if you follow a wide range of sources, truths still emerge.