On The Status Of "Protection Responsibility" In International Law

September2000, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chretienannounced at the United Nations Millennium Assembly of Canada will set up a "Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty "(ICISS), designed to respondwhen he was UN Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed hope that the internationalcommunity on how to prevent massive violations of human rights and violations ofinternational law to reach a consensus. The committee in December2001issued areport entitled "responsibility to protect," the report, which is the central idea of thesovereign state has the responsibility to protect its citizens, when a government isunable or inability to discharge this responsibility, thus unable to prevent large-scalehumanitarian disaster, and even the government is the maker of this humanitariandisaster, the international community has a responsibility to fulfill the responsibilityto protect the citizens of the country."2005World Summit Outcome ’ of the" responsibility to protect " the specificcontent to be a definition of a nutshell: The first is that the responsibility to protecteach State to protect its citizens is the primary responsibility of States, States have aresponsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansingand crimes against humanity of the victims of responsibilities. But if a government isunable or unwilling to protect their citizens, the international community shouldassume this responsibility to protect. Careful study "2005World Summit Outcome" versus " responsibility to protect" the responsibility to protect can be explainedsubdivided into duty to prevent reactions responsibilities and obligationsconstruction of three parts." Responsibility to protect" theory from the date of birth, there is a suspicionhas been accompanied by " responsibility to protect" is not the traditional "humanitarian intervention " promise, or is it a new form of expression? Send thisquestion that the international community for this involves national sovereignty andinternational protection of human rights theories still have scruples, because tradition of "humanitarian intervention" theory has been put on the spot, the Westerncountries need a new theory of human rights to its interests of the service, and the "responsibility to protect" just another theory was born in the Western countries.These objective environmental factors lead to controversy and doubt this theory hasalways been there, but we should see the " responsibility to protect" theory than of"humanitarian intervention" theory is a development and progress, that is why theinternational community was able to "2005World Summit Outcome " and reach aconsensus on this theory,"responsibility to protect " theory has thus become anintegral part of international law.Followed by a new round of human rights and sovereignty," what moreimportant " discussion rise again on " sovereignty must make contributions to humanrights " argument is also prevalent. The author ’s basic view is that " responsibilityto protect" Although in theory the "UN Charter " as the cornerstone of thefundamental principles of international law poses a challenge, this is not afundamental change and subversion. It is noteworthy that the new " humanitarianintervention " mode may form, that of "humanitarian intervention" as the UNSecurity Council authorized the use of force of reason, which is the relationshipbetween human rights and sovereignty of the new changes. Overall, theinternational community’s " responsibility to protect" the consensus is limited, thereare still many differences, and this difference is gradually growing, which requiresthe " responsibility to protect" theory along with the development of the timesfurther improved.I believe that the " responsibility to protect" is still in the stage of internationallaw theory, this theory more than ten years throughout the development process canbe roughly divided into three stages. Namely: in December2001," the InternationalCommittee of interference with national sovereignty " when he was the UNSecretary General to Kofi Annan to submit "responsibility to protect " the report,marking the " responsibility to protect" theory from brewing to birth; October200560th session of the UN General Assembly adopted the "2005World SummitOutcome," marking the " responsibility to protect" theory after repeated consultations countries, negotiations, as amended by the international community isfinally accepted as an integral part of international law; March2011"NATO"bombing of Libya, marking the " responsibility to protect" the theory of so-called "first practice " caused the international community to this theory of deep reflection.Libyan war has been the West as a " responsibility to protect" the theory of theinitial international practice. In the United States, Britain, France, represented bythe Western countries to prevent the name of " humanitarian disaster " on the cover,to borrow the UN Security Council Resolution1973authorized military operationsagainst Libya, a direct result of the change of regime in Libya. But there aredifferent points of view that the " Libyan war " is not a "responsibility to protect " inpractice, only the name of " responsibility to protect" under the banner of another "humanitarian intervention." I think that the " Libyan war " at best, only to meet inthe form of the " responsibility to protect" the theory of practice conditions, there isa serious abuse of "responsibility to protect " the suspect, the " practice " mode mustnot become the next "responsibility to protect " practical templates and precedents.Chinese government approved " responsibility to protect" positive significance,it also firmly opposed to politically motivated abuse of "responsibility to protect."Chinese government insists that the international community is necessary to reflectthe so-called "responsibility to protect the initial practice " to be reflective.