27 July R2P Discussion Paperdoc .doc

NGO Strategy Discussion on Advancing the Responsibility to Protect Discussion paper for 27 july meeting hosted by Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, Oxfam International, World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy Background The endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect R2P at the 2005 Summit was praised as a major step forward for the mobilization of earlier and more effective collective action in the face of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity. R2P has been welcomed by many as an agreement that sets out more clearly governments’ obligations to protect civilians, as well as a mechanism to hold governments accountable for their actions and inactions. The Security Council “reaffirmation” of responsibility to protect in Resolution 1674 on the protection of civilians is yet a further step toward codification of this important norm. Yet the responsibility to protect doctrine remains a controversial, particularly within the Security Council, as reflected in the months-long delay in acceptance of Resolution 1674, and the subsequent removal of the reference to responsibility to protect in the terms of reference of the Security Council mission to Darfur. The recent open debate on the protection of civilians reflected the spectrum of views on the subject. China’s statement included the following words of caution on R2P: [R]esolution 1674 2006 reaffirmed a principle expressed in the outcome document of last year’s summit General Assembly resolution 60/1 : the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. China believes that that is not the same as the simple concept of the responsibility to protect, about which many countries continue to have concerns. The outcome document elaborated extensively on that concept. In-depth discussion of the issue should continue in the General Assembly so that differing opinions can be heard and doubts cleared up. In that role, the Sec