Skyldigheten att skydda : Utvecklingen av R2P ur ett folkrättsligt perspektiv

Sammanfattning: The debate regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the protection of the hu-man rights was at its peak during the 1990’s. Never again the world wanted to witness the atrocities committed in Rwanda, but at the same time some states argued in favor of a strict interpretation of the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention. In 2001, ICISS was created – a commission with the aim to find consensus in the question of how the world should respond to mass atrocities committed by a state against their own people. Their work resulted in a report which presented a new view to the state sovereignty: “the responsibility to protect” (R2P). The purpose of this essay is to study the development and appliance of the concept since 2001. According to ICISS, every state has a responsibility to protect its citizens against mass atrocities. If the state is unwilling, or incapable to live up to this responsibility, the international community has the secondary responsibility to protect the people in that state. At the time of ICISS:s report, R2P had a limited legal value and could only be consid-ered as a soft law-principle consisting of arguments de lege ferenda. During the World Sum-mit in 2005, the principle evolved into an international normative concept consisting of the state’s opinio iuris, as R2P was implemented in two paragraphs in the Outcome Document. The definition of the concept now became narrower than the original principle, since R2P only applied to genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The ap-pliance of R2P has been fairly inconsequent in practice. Although usus has not been reached in the area, R2P is now an established concept, and the debate has led from if the international community should act, to how it should act. In the future, regional organizations will probably play an extended role in the work for international peace. Interventions without the Security Council’s mandate is not a desirable outcome, but nevertheless a possibility if the Council doesn’t become more effective when facing mass atrocities and humanitarian disasters.