Responsibility to protect and the Syrian conflict

Abstract

The Syrian conflict begs only one question under international law, namely, what is the relevance to human security of the responsibility to protect principle (R2P)? If as is clear from all media reports during the conflict, a prima facie case for genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity can be made regarding this conflict, then the relevance of the strictures of international criminal law prohibiting these offenses; and of international human rights law and international humanitarian law generally are impugned? This dissertation evaluates the jus cogens quality of offenses committed during the Syrian conflict under the light of the R2P principle heralded as the bridge between non-intervention in the internal affairs of States; the sovereignty principle in order to ensure human security everywhere. The dissertation shows that although a conflict exists amongst the doctrines of state sovereignty, responsibility to protect, and human security, it remains implausible to assert that the R2P principle is defunct. It recommends the transfer to regional bodies of certain UN Security Council powers for promoting and ensuring human security to regional organisations such as the League of the Arab States in order to minimise abstraction of excess human suffering that is targeted by peremptory norms of international law.