I was doing a little bit of reading the other day.  Specifically I was reading up on the doctrine known as the "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P.  This is a philosophy that has been developing over the last century or so, although its latest incarnation and name - R2P - can be traced back just to the beginning of this century.  In 2001 a body established by the Canadian government, known as the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, released its report entitled the "Responsibility to Protect" where it outlined a philosphy declaring that it was the responsibility of the international community to intervene in states where the governments were committing, or allowing, severe human rights abuses against their populations.

The idea that sometimes it is justified to intervene in the domestic affairs of another country on the basis of moral outrage provoked by that country's actions is not exactly new.  The Nazis systematic genocide during World War Two led many people afterwards to declare "Never again" and there were a number of international treaties aimed at preventing future genocides and other human rights abuses of extreme severity.  Yet, despite the desire to do something about war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against a country's population by, or with the acquiescence of, its own government there has always been reluctance for states to intervene for a number of reasons.

First of all countries guard their independence jealously and attempts to intervene in a country without the consent of its government always will bring about complaints that the intervenor is trampling on the independence and sovereignty of the state in question so potential intervenors often are not willing to face this criticism.   As well, many countries are afraid of setting a precedent that could possibly be used against them.  They may have questionable human rights practices in their own homelands and, if they were to intervene in another country on humanitarian grounds, could someone do the same to them in the future?  After all, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, right?  Finally, countries that would contemplate intervening are mindful that, if they intervene in a country without the consent of its government, this is quite likely to result in war and they are fearful of spending time, money, effort and lives in a war that is purely for humanitarian reasons.  It is hard to convince a government to put their military at risk when they have no poltical or economic interest in a country, only a humanitarian one.

Taking a look at the first of these concerns - national sovereignty - this is the one I think that has the most validity.  Countries should, for the most part, be left in peace without unwanted interference from other nations.  However, in my mind, sovereignty should not be considered absolute.  I have my doubts that the ideals of the Peace of Westphalia, whereby states were considered fully autonomous from one another without even a hint of interference, ever existed in reality and, if they did, I don't think they have a place any longer in today's world.

It is my position that governments are there to serve their populations.  They have sovereignty over their territories yes but this sovereignty is derived from their respective peoples, it does not belong to the government itself.  They have power but with power comes responsibility and the foremost responsibility of any country's government is to protect its people - the Responsibility to Protect.  If a government is unable or unwilling to exercise this duty and instead commits, or allows, grave and serious human rights violations against its own citizenry then I believe they have surrendered their right to be left in peace.  They are failing to live up to their implied bargain with their people - they are exercising their powers of government but they are not fulfilling the related responsibility to protect.  They have ceased to be a legitimate government and are not entitled to immunity from interference from outside powers.  In essence, since the country's government has failed to live up to its obligations to its people these duties have fallen on the international community as a whole and they have the duty to intervene and help the oppressed population.

Does this responsibility to protect mean that the international community must invade every dictatorship in the world?  In a word - no.  Military intervention should be considered the last resort, as the International Commission stated in its report.  First diplomatic efforts should be attempted, then perhaps sanctions that fall short of invasion (i.e. embargos, etc.) and only if all these efforts are failures should the use of force be contemplated.  It should also be noted that intervention is only warranted where the abuses being perpetrated are severe.  Not every undemocratic or oppressive practice that a country engages in or permits would justify interference from the international community.  Only evils such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, or other human rights abuses of equal severity, would warrant overriding the principle of national sovereignty.

I would also like to note that I believe that the Responsibility to Protect should be exercised in a multilateral manner wherever possible.  No one nation should take it upon themselves to be the "police of the world" for I believe that this would lead to possible abuse of the doctrine for political reasons, lessen the credibility of the nation in question and of the doctrine as a whole.  Preferably an international organization, such as the UN, would authorize the intervention, thereby granting it legitimacy.  However, since the UN often cannot come to decisions on controversial matters due to the structure of the UN Security Council, it may be necessary that other organizations be utilized.