354 Journal of the Spanisch Institute for Strategic Studies N. 3 / 2014 As a result of this statement, the Canadian Government set up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) for the purpose of finding a solution to this issue, publishing a final report in 2001 entitled “The responsibility to protect”11. The report, together with the conclusions of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which was set up at the request of the Secretary- General, demonstrated the need to recognise the responsibility to protect that every state has towards its people or, failing this, the responsibility will lie with the international community. It was also pointed out that while wars between states have become less frequent, internal wars have claimed more than five million lives and given rise to a huge number of refugees. It goes on to add that the UN can help address these challenges if its members take a new approach to the mission they have to complete and restructure the organisation to help improve the lives of people in the new century. The Commission indicates that a new guiding principle, which could be called “the responsibility to protect”, is emerging, according to which intervention for the purpose of humanitarian protection, including military intervention as a last resort, is admissible when the civilian population is suffering or in imminent danger of serious physical injury and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it; or when the state is responsible for the situation. It is established that sovereignty not only entitles a state to control its own matters, but, moreover, implies the primary responsibility for the protection of its people within its borders. It is proposed that the international community take responsibility for protection when a state fails to do so. From this viewpoint, sovereignty is not absolute, it has limits. And it also entails a responsibility that ultimately falls on the international community if the state neglects its responsibility in this respect. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the Charter’s strong bias against military intervention is not to be regarded as absolute when decisive action is required on human protection grounds. The responsibility to protect embraces three specific responsibilities: • Prevent: this is the most important dimension and should be given absolute priority. It includes a number of aspects, such as addressing the causes of insecurities, i.e., poverty, illiteracy, discrimination and forced displacements. The relevant authorities are urged to create early warning mechanisms at the national, regional and international levels. • React: this emerges when prevention fails and it is the most controversial of the 11 Vid. ICISS: “The Responsibility to protect”, 2001: http://responsibility to protect.org/ICISS%20 Report.pdf.
REVISTA IEEE 3
To see the actual publication please follow the link above