Humanity & National Security: The Law of Mass Atrocity Response Operations

Keith A. Petty
{"title":"Humanity & National Security: The Law of Mass Atrocity Response Operations","authors":"Keith A. Petty","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2120940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the world watches civilian slaughter in Syria, the United States is refining a whole of government approach to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. Military intervention under the recently developed concept of Mass Atrocity Response Operations (MARO) will certainly be included as part of any planning contingency, following diplomatic, economic, and multilateral actions. The current state of international law, however, only permits the use of force, to prevent atrocity crimes or for any other reason, if authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC) or in self-defense. When the UNSC fails to act — as it has so often in the past — any MARO action taken by a State or group of States without a self-defense justification will be highly contentious and likely unlawful. As a result, political paralysis ensues and mass atrocities continue apace. Witness Assad’s massacre. This article argues that individual States or groups of States must have the authority to intervene to halt atrocity crimes, even without UNSC approval. Initially, the historical State-centric legal regime, including the UN framework, has proven incapable of effectively dealing with widespread human rights violations. As a result, the international community is embarking on a civilian centric approach, including the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has contributed to the erosion of State sovereignty and fostered the legitimacy — if not legality — of unilateral action. In order to overcome legal obstacles to protecting civilians from slaughter, U.S. decision-makers must take the lead in developing norms that will effectively halt ongoing atrocities through a discursive process at the international and domestic level, and, if necessary, through transgression of existing law. Besides outlining steps to develop a positive or customary legal norm, this article prescribes a principled threshold for MARO application, which will lead to greater international acceptance of this strategy and, ultimately, the effective arrest of ongoing atrocities.","PeriodicalId":331401,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of International Law","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2120940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

As the world watches civilian slaughter in Syria, the United States is refining a whole of government approach to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. Military intervention under the recently developed concept of Mass Atrocity Response Operations (MARO) will certainly be included as part of any planning contingency, following diplomatic, economic, and multilateral actions. The current state of international law, however, only permits the use of force, to prevent atrocity crimes or for any other reason, if authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC) or in self-defense. When the UNSC fails to act — as it has so often in the past — any MARO action taken by a State or group of States without a self-defense justification will be highly contentious and likely unlawful. As a result, political paralysis ensues and mass atrocities continue apace. Witness Assad’s massacre. This article argues that individual States or groups of States must have the authority to intervene to halt atrocity crimes, even without UNSC approval. Initially, the historical State-centric legal regime, including the UN framework, has proven incapable of effectively dealing with widespread human rights violations. As a result, the international community is embarking on a civilian centric approach, including the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has contributed to the erosion of State sovereignty and fostered the legitimacy — if not legality — of unilateral action. In order to overcome legal obstacles to protecting civilians from slaughter, U.S. decision-makers must take the lead in developing norms that will effectively halt ongoing atrocities through a discursive process at the international and domestic level, and, if necessary, through transgression of existing law. Besides outlining steps to develop a positive or customary legal norm, this article prescribes a principled threshold for MARO application, which will lead to greater international acceptance of this strategy and, ultimately, the effective arrest of ongoing atrocities.
人性与国家安全:大规模暴行应对行动的法律
在全世界目睹叙利亚平民被屠杀的同时,美国正在完善整个政府预防和应对种族灭绝及其他暴行罪行的方法。在最近发展起来的大规模暴行应对行动(MARO)的概念下,军事干预肯定会被包括在外交、经济和多边行动之后,作为任何应急计划的一部分。然而,根据目前的国际法,只有在得到联合国安理会授权或出于自卫的情况下,才允许为防止暴力犯罪或任何其他原因使用武力。当联合国安理会不采取行动时- -就像过去经常发生的那样- -一个国家或国家集团在没有自卫理由的情况下采取的任何MARO行动将极具争议性,而且很可能是非法的。结果,政治瘫痪随之而来,大规模暴行继续迅速发生。看看阿萨德的大屠杀吧。该条认为,个别国家或国家集团必须有权进行干预以制止暴行罪行,即使没有安理会的批准。最初,历史上以国家为中心的法律制度,包括联合国框架,已被证明无法有效处理广泛的侵犯人权行为。因此,国际社会正着手采取以平民为中心的办法,包括保护责任的概念,这种做法助长了对国家主权的侵蚀,助长了单方面行动的合法性- -如果不是合法性的话。为了克服保护平民免遭屠杀的法律障碍,美国决策者必须带头制定规范,通过国际和国内层面的讨论过程,并在必要时通过违反现行法律,有效制止正在发生的暴行。除了概述制定积极或习惯法律规范的步骤外,该条还规定了适用MARO的原则性门槛,这将导致国际上更大程度地接受这一战略,并最终有效地逮捕正在进行的暴行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信