Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes

  • Colette Rausch (a1)

Extract

The doctrine of “responsibility to protect” obliges all states to protect populations from “atrocity crimes”—namely, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing—under three “pillars” of protection. Pillar One requires a state to protect its own population from atrocity crimes. Pillar Two obliges the international community to help states to exercise this responsibility through diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means. When both of these approaches fail, states must pursue a “Pillar Three” strategy: the UN Security Council must “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner.”

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Justice and Security Dialogue Project: Building the Resilience of Non-State Actors to Atrocity Crimes
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Hide All

1 GA Res. 60/1, 2005 World Summit Outcome, para. 138 (Sep. 16, 2005) [hereinafter World Summit Outcome].

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id. at para. 139.

5 Secretary-General, Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, UN Doc. A/63/677, para. 11 (Jan. 12, 2009).

6 World Summit Outcome, supra note 1, at para. 139.

7 See Secretary-General, supra note 5.

8 Id. at para. 11.

9 Id. at para. 45.

10 UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes: A Tool for Prevention (2014) [hereinafter Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes].

11 Id.

12 Secretary-General, supra note 5, at para. 44.

13 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nepal Conflict Report 2012 (2012).

14 The text of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is in USIP's Peace Agreements Digital Collection.

16 Id. at 23.

17 Secretary-General, supra note 5, at para. 44.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Justice and Security Dialogues, U.S. Institute of Peace.

21 Secretary-General, supra note 5, at para. 44.

22 Nigel Quinney, Justice and Security Dialogue in Nepal, 2006–17: Innovation, Evolution, and Impact, 5 Building Peace 39–40, 48 (forthcoming).

24 Id.

25 Quinney, supra note 15, at 12.

26 Details in author's files.

27 Sarah Hanssen & Peter Bauman, Justice and Security Dialogues: Greatest Hits, U.S. Institute of Peace 9 (unpublished internal report, July 2017).

28 Nigel Quinney, Justice and Security Dialogue in Iraq: Enabling Police-Community Collaboration in Perilous Times, 6 Building Peace 29 (forthcoming).

29 Id. at 29–30, 40.

30 Quinney, supra note 22, at 18.

31 Id. at 49.

32 Id. at 50.

33 Oliver Kaplan, Resisting War 11 (2017).

34 Id.

35 Erik Jensen, The Rule of Law and Judicial Reform: The Political Economy of Diverse Institutional Patterns and Reformer's Responses, in Beyond Common Knowledge: Empirical Approaches to the Rule of Law (Erik Gilbert Jensen & Thomas C. Heller eds., 2003).

36 See, e.g., David M. Trubek & Marc Galanter, Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States, 4 Wis. L. Rev. 1062 (1974).

37 Steven Golub, Beyond the Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative, in Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge (Thomas Carothers ed., 2006).

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed