Advertisement

Responsibility to Protect – ein westliches Konzept?

  • Dan KrauseEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Gerechter Frieden book series (GEFR)

Zusammenfassung

Die Schutzverantwortung (Responsibility to Protect, R2P) wird in diesem Aufsatz als ein umfassendes politisches Konzept verstanden. Es bündelt rechtliche, ethische und politische Normen, Prinzipien und Überlegungen in Bezug auf den Schutz des Menschen vor schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Indem es diese neu zu denken, zu interpretieren und zu verknüpfen sucht, wird das Ziel verfolgt, bestehende Spannungen und Widersprüche – zwischen dem Souveränitätsprinzip, Gewalt- und Interventionsverbot auf der einen und bestehenden völkerrechtlichen Normen zum Schutz des Individuums vor schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der anderen Seite – aufzulösen (vgl. Arnauld 2015, S. 64ff.; Luck 2008, S. 53; Mabera und Spies 2016, S. 214f.).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Aboagye, Festus. 2012. South Africa and R2P: More State Sovereignty and Regime Security than Human Security? In The Responsibility to Protect – From Evasive to Reluctant Action, hrsg. von der Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, dem Institute for Security Studies, der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und dem South African Institute of International Affairs, 29–52. Johannesburg: United Litho.Google Scholar
  2. Aboobaker, Shanti. 2017. At War With the West. http://amabhungane.co.za/article/2017-05-28-at-war-with-the-west. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.
  3. Afrikanische Union (AU). 2000. Constitutive Act of the African Union. http://www.achpr.org/instruments/au-constitutive-act/. Zugegriffen: 10. Oktober 2018.
  4. Afrikanische Union (AU). 2005. The Common African Position on the Proposd Reform of the United Nations: The Ezulwini Consensus. http://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/au/cap_screform_2005.pdf. Zugegriffen: 19. Oktober 2018.
  5. Almeida, Paula Wojcikiewcz. 2017. Brazil’s Inconsistent Approach towards International Organizations and R2P. In Southern Democracies and the Responsibility to Protect. Perspectives from India, Brazil and South Africa, hrsg. von Daniel Peters und Dan Krause, 71–100. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  6. Arnauld, Andreas von. 2015. Werdende Norm oder politisches Konzept? Zur völkerrechtlichen Einordnung der Responsibility to Protect. In Schutzverantwortung in der Debatte: Die „Responsibility to Protect“ nach dem Libyen-Dissens, hrsg. von Michael Staack und Dan Krause, 55–76. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  7. Banerjee, Dipankar. 2012. India and R2P: Reconciling the Tension Between Intervention and State Sovereignty. In The Responsibility to Protect – From Evasive to Reluctant Action. The Role of Global Middle Powers, hrsg. von der Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, dem Institute for Security Studies, der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und dem South African Institute of International Affairs, 91–100. Johannesburg: United Litho.Google Scholar
  8. Benner, Thorsten. 2013. Brazil as a Norm Entrepreneur: The „Responsibility While Protecting“-Initiative. https://www.gppi.net/fileadmin/user_upload/media/pub/2013/Benner_2013_Working-Paper_Brazil-RWP.pdf. Zugegriffen: 18. Oktober 2018.
  9. Bush, George H. W. 1992. State of the Union. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/29/us/state-union-transcript-president-bush-s-addressstate-union.html. Zugegriffen: 10. Oktober 2018.
  10. Charbonneau, Louis. 2011. U.N. Chief Defends NATO From Critics of Libya War. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-nato-un-idUSTRE7BD20C20111214. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.
  11. Dembinski, Matthias. 2016. Regionale Sicherheitsorganisationen als Barrieren oder Bausteine globalen Regierens. https://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/HSFK/hsfk_publikationen/report0716.pdf. Zugegriffen: 16. Oktober 2018.
  12. Dembinski, Matthias. 2017. Procedural Justice and Global Order: Explaining African Reaction to the Application of Global Protection Norms. European Journal of International Relations 23(4): 809–832.Google Scholar
  13. Deng, Francis M., Sadikiel Kimaro, Terrence Lyons, Donald Rothchild und I. William Zartman (Hrsg.). 1996. Sovereignty as Responsibility. Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  14. Esterhuyse, Abel. 2016. The South African Threat Agenda: Between Political Agendas, Perceptions and Contradictions. S+F. Sicherheit und Frieden – Security and Peace 34 (3): 191–197.Google Scholar
  15. Ganguly, Sumit. 2013. India in the Liberal Order. http://www.transatlanticacademy.org/publications/india-liberal-order. Zugegriffen: 23. September 2018.
  16. Garwood-Gowers, Andrew. 2012. China and the „Responsibility to Protect“: The Implications of the Libyan Intervention. Asian Journal of International Law 2 (2): 375–393.Google Scholar
  17. Garwood-Gowers, Andrew. 2013. The BRICS and the Responsibility to Protect: Lessons From the Libyan and Syrian Crises. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/59649/. Zugegriffen: 18. Oktober 2018.
  18. Garwood-Gowers. 2016. China’s „Responsible Protection“ Concept: Reinterpreting the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes. Asian Journal of International Law 6 (1): 89–118.Google Scholar
  19. Geldenhuys, Deon. 2010. South Africa: The Idea-Driven Foreign Policy of a Regional Power. In Regional Leadership in the Global System. Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers, hrsg. von Daniel Flemes, 151–167. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Golovnina, Marina und Michael Georgy. 2011. West in „Mediaeval Crusade“ on Gaddafi, Putin says. https://www.reuters.com/article/ozatp-libya-idAFJOE72K0DF20110321. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.
  21. Herz, Monica. 2013. Assumptions on Intervention and Security in South America. In South America and Peace Operations. Coming of age, hrsg. von Kai Michael Kenkel, 25–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf. Zugegriffen: 8. Oktober 2018.
  23. Jaganathan, Madhan Mohan. 2017. It’s more than What It Seems: Understanding India’s Perspective on „Responsibility to Protect“. In Southern Democracies and the Responsibility to Protect. Perspectives from India, Brazil and South Africa, hrsg. von Daniel Peters und Dan Krause, 41–70. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  24. Jaganatha, Madhan Mohan und Gerrit Kurtz. 2014. Singing the Tune of Sovereignty? India and the Responsibility to Protect. Conflict, Security and Development 14(4): 461–487.Google Scholar
  25. Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2013. Introduction: Diversity Within a Common Culture: South America and Peace Operations. In South America and Peace Operations. Coming of Age, hrsg. von Kai Michael Kenkel, 1–22. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kenkel, Kai Michael und Christina G. Stefan. 2016. Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 22 (1): 41–58.Google Scholar
  27. Kikoler, Naomi. 2014. Supporting African Solutions to African Problems – IBSA and the Implementation of Article 4 (h). In Africa and the Responsibility to Protect: Article 4 (h) of the African Union Constitutive Act, hrsg. von Dan Kuwali and Viljoen Frans, 325–337. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Kozyrev, Vitaly 2016. Harmonizing „Responsibility to Protect“: China’s Vision of a Post-Sovereign World. International Relations 30 (3): 328–345.Google Scholar
  29. Krause, Dan. 2015. Und sie bewegt sich doch! Indiens Haltung zur Responsibility to Protect. In Schutzverantwortung in der Debatte: Die „Responsibility to Protect“ nach dem Libyen-Dissens, hrsg. von Michael Staack und Dan Krause, 181–215. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  30. Krause, Dan. 2017. Still on Board? South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect. In Southern Democracies and the Responsibility to Protect. Perspectives from India, Brazil and South Africa, hrsg. von Daniel Peters und Dan Krause, 181–210. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  31. Kreß, Claus und Benjamin Nussberger. 2017. Pro-Democratic Intervention in Current International Law: The Case of The Gambia in January 2017. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 4 (2): 239–252.Google Scholar
  32. Kurowska, Xymena. 2014. Multipolarity as Resistance to Liberal Norms: Russia’s Position on Responsibility to Protect. Conflict, Security and Development 14 (4): 489–508.Google Scholar
  33. Landsberg, Chris. 2010. Pax South Africana and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 2 (4): 436–457.Google Scholar
  34. Landsberg, Chris and Candice Moore. 2012. South Africa’s Libya Vote: How is Foreign Policy Decided? New Agenda, South African Journal of Social and Economic Policy 2012 (Fourth Quarter): 72–76.Google Scholar
  35. Lucey, Amanda, Gustavo de Carvalho und Sibongile Gida. 2014. South Africa and the United Nations. Strengthening Opportunities for Effective Peacebuilding. https://issafrica.org/research/papers/south-africa-and-the-united-nations-strengthening-opportunities-for-effective-peacebuilding. Zugegriffen 01. November 2018.
  36. Luck, Edward C. 2008. Der verantwortliche Souverän und die Schutzverantwortung. Auf dem Weg von einem Konzept zur Norm. Vereinte Nationen 56 (2): 51–58.Google Scholar
  37. Mabera, Faith. 2016. Persönliches Interview mit dem Autor vom 9. September 2016. Pretoria: Institute for Global Dialogue.Google Scholar
  38. Mabera, Faith und Tim Dunne. 2013. South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect. R2P Ideas in brief 3 (6): 1–11.Google Scholar
  39. Mabera, Faith und Yolanda Spies. 2016. How Well does R2P Travel Beyond the West? In The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect, hrsg. von Alex Bellamy und Tim Dunne, 208–226. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mandela, Nelson. 1990. Town Hall Meeting, June 21, 1990 in New York. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6eE9BIUfBg. Zugegriffen: 16. Oktober 2018.
  41. Masters, Lesley. 2012. Opening the „Black Box“ – South African Foreign Policy Making. In South African Foreign Policy Review. Bd. 1, hrsg. von Chris Landsberg, Chris und Jo-Ansie van Wyk, 20–41. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.Google Scholar
  42. Mohan, C. Raja. 2003 Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pidd, Helen 2011 Nato Rejects Russian Claims of Libya Mission Creep. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/15/nato-libya-rasmussen-medvedev-criticism. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.
  43. Puri, Hardeep Singh. 2012. Statement by H. E. Ambassador H. S. Puri, Permanent Representative of India to the UN, An Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Secretary General on Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Action at the 66th Session of the United Nations General Assembly vom 5 September 2012 in New York. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/India.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Oktober 2018.
  44. Regler, Sonja. 2015. Chinas Haltung zur R2P zwischen Skepsis und Offenheit. In Schutzverantwortung in der Debatte: Die „Responsibility to Protect“ nach dem Libyen-Dissens, hrsg. von Michael Staack und Dan Krause, 229–246. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  45. Ribeiro Viotti, Maria Luiza. 2011. Responsibility While Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/concept-paper-_rwp.pdf. Zugegriffen: 18. Oktober 2018.
  46. Sampford, Charles und Ramesh Thakur. 2015. From the Right to Persecute to the Responsibility to Protect: Feuerbachian Inversions of Rights and Responsibilities in State-Citizen Relations In Theorising the Responsibility to Protect, hrsg. von Ramesh Thakur und William Maley, 38–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Siko, John. 2014. Inside South Africa’s Foreign Policy. Diplomacy in Africa from Smuts to Mbeki. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, Karen. 2015. R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution. SAIIA Policy Briefing Nr. 133. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Staack, Michael und Dan Krause (Hrsg.). 2015. Schutzverantwortung in der Debatte: Die „Responsibility to Protect“ nach dem Libyen-Dissens. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  50. Statista. 2018. Anteil der BRICS-Staaten am kaufkraftbereinigten globalen Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) von 2008 bis 2018. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/248719/umfrage/anteil-der-bric-staaten-am-globalen-bruttoinlandsprodukt-bip/. Zugegriffen: 16. Oktober 2018.
  51. Stewart, Carina. 2011. Russia Accuses Nato of „Expanding“ UN Libya Resolution. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/russia-accuses-nato-of-expanding-un-libya-resolution-2306996.html. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.
  52. Swaine, Michael D. 2012. Chinese Views of the Syrian Conflict. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Swaine_CLM_39_091312_2.pdf. Zugegriffen: 18. Oktober 2018.
  53. Teitt, Sarah. 2011. The Responsibility to Protect and China’s Peacekeeping Policy. International Peacekeeping. 18 (3): 298–312.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations (UN). 1958. India and People’s Republic of China: Agreement (with Exchange of Notes) on Trade and Intercourse Between Tibet Region of China and India. Signed at Peking, 29. April 1954. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20299/v299.pdf. Zugegriffen: 2. Oktober 2018.
  55. United Nations (UN), Security Council. 1999. Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Republic of India, Mr. Kamalesh Sharma, at the 3998th meeting, 23.03.1999, S/PV.3988. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/kos%20SPV3988.pdf. Zugegriffen: 2. Oktober 2018.
  56. United Nations (UN), Peacekeeping. 2018. Troop and Police Contributors. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/troop-and-police-contributors. Zugegriffen: 18. Oktober 2018.
  57. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Human Development Report 1994. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20. September 2018.
  58. Weiss, Thomas G. 2006. R2P after 9/11 and the World Summit. Wisconsin International Law Journal 24 (3): 741–760.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, Paul D. 2007. From Non-Intervention to Non-Indifference: The Origins and Development of the African Union’s Security Culture. African Affairs 106 (423): 253–279.Google Scholar
  60. Wulf, Herbert. 2013. India’s Aspirations in Global Politics. Competing Ideas and Amorphous Practices. http://inef.uni-due.de/cms/files/report107.pdf. Zugegriffen: 6. Oktober 2018.
  61. Ziegler, Charles E. 2016. Russia on the Rebound: Using and Misusing the Responsibility to Protect. International Relations 30 (3): 346–361.Google Scholar
  62. Zongze, Ruan. 2012. Responsible Protection: Building a Safer World. http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012-06/15/content_5090912.htm. Zugegriffen: 17. Oktober 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmut-Schmidt-Universität Hamburg, Universität der Bundeswehr HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations