Yeshi Choedon 2017
India on Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect: Shifting Nuances
The article discusses how India adopted a cautious approach and yet used every opportunity to remind
the international community the baleful effect of intervention in the internal affairs.
Grudging Acceptance
The (ICISS) Commission popularised in September 2000 the R2P put the interests of victims of
atrocities ahead of intervening powers.
UN Secretary General Luck decided to make explicit the content of paragraphs reframed a three-pillar
institutional architecture:
1. The protection responsibilities of the state
2. International assistance and capacity-building
3. Timely and decisive response
India supports the first and second pillars of R2P. India supported the international community to
assist building of governments in fulfilling their obligations. However, India hold reservations against
the third pillar.
India’s conviction that ‘responsibility to protect should in no way provide a pretext for
humanitarian intervention or unilateral action’
R2P could be used a façade for the West to pursue their own interests and indulge in the
regime change.
own various domestic unrests and its inability to protect the rights of its vast minority
populations. It fears that a firm global embrace of the third pillar could very easily set a
precedent that could come to haunt the country in future
Till 2011, India’s official position was a grudging acceptance of R2P - India went along with the rest
of the international community as it did not wish to be perceived as the obstructionist or outlier.
Return to Deep Scepticism
R2P was formally evoked by the UN Security Council in Libya crisis proved to be a turning point for
the concept of R2P.
Syria
The misuse of the UN mandate by the NATO in Libya contributed to the paralysis of the UN Security
Council in the grievous situation that subsequently unfolded in Syria.
India’s position has focused on three things:
Condemnation of violence and human rights violations of all the parties in the conflict
Encouraging a peaceful and inclusive political process to resolve the crisis
Ensuring Syria itself leads the resolution of the conflict
Western countries proposed a resolution on October 2011 condemning crimes of the Assad regime in
Syria, India abstained despite strong Western pressure to vote in favour
Singh urged that ‘the international community should facilitate engagement of the Syrian Government
and the opposition in a Syrian-led inclusive political process, and not complicate the situation by
threats of sanctions, regime change’
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller samirhakim1997. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
