342 Journal of the Spanisch Institute for Strategic Studies N. 3 / 2014 case – especially if it is an armed reaction for the cause of humanity – the duty to reconstruct60. 5. CONCLUSIONS A) There is no doubt that the humanitarian disaster in Syria constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The basic pre-requirements for the application of the concept of the RtoP are present in this conflict. Here, we share the ideas presented by Marina De Luengo Zarzoso in an article in the current issue of the Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies61: 1. that the use of armed force, within the framework of the RtoP, is only viable as a last resort; and 2. that, in addition, it is only possible in cases where the determined and specific events outlined above are present. The importance of prevention in this concept – an issue that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has insisted upon in all of his previous reports – led to him specify the possible “policy options for atrocity prevention” 62 in the 2013 report. B) For various reasons, and learning from their own mistakes, upon implementing Resolution 1973 (2011), the Security Council should have stopped the conflict earlier to protect the civilian population. This wasn’t done, however. Russia and China’s veto (or threat of veto) stopped it. C) The concept of the RtoP requires the modification of the parameters that govern the right of veto of the permanent members of the Security Council in order to fulfil its role as it has been structured. It is with good reason, then, that a new initiative calling for the “responsibility not to veto63” has started to spread. We also share the thesis put forward by Marina De Luengo Zarzoso in her study, where she maintains that the international community can only react with authorisation from the Council including, where appropriate, with an armed intervention in the 60 Vid. ad ex. PATTISON, J.: Humanitarian intervention & the Responsability to Protect. Who should intervene?, cit, pp. 245-253. 61 “Los retos jurídicos de la responsabilidad de proteger en el nuevo panorama de seguridad y defensa”, para. 1.2 and 3. 62 Responsibility to protect: State responsibility and prevention. Report of the Secretary-General (A/67/929-S/2013/399), 9 July 2013, pp. 1-19 (pp. 8 ss., para. 30-70). 63 First proposed by Global Solutions in 2010: “The Responsibility not to veto: a way forward”, pp. 1-12 (www.globalsolutions.org/files/public/documents/RN2V_White_Paper_CGS.pdf).
REVISTA IEEE 3
To see the actual publication please follow the link above