Vanuit internationaal recht brengt de interventie een nieuw debat op gang, waarbij men vaststelt dat er in 2 verschillende richtingen word gehandeld.
Citaat:
|
The problem with the Security Council is that it is dominated by major powers who wield veto rights. This state of affairs is a legacy of the founding of the UN after WWII. Given the developments in world affairs and the trend toward a multi-polar context, it is high time that the UN charter be amended. As a first step, membership in the Security Council should be revised to include all G20 nations and to cancel all veto rights. Decisions could then be taken through majority vote (or perhaps enhanced majority). And again these votes should be exercised following a legal argument presenting the case based upon an approved framework of international law. All those in favor of R2P please speak up and insist that the UN immediately initiate discussion toward establishing legal precedent along the lines I am suggesting here. All those who claim to support R2P, but who refuse to allow such amendments to UN process, will be unveiled. In actual fact what they favor is conditionality in the enforcement of R2P. The condition is that the target country should be a candidate for regime change and for the extension of the West’s influence. Otherwise, as in the case of Bahrain, the internal conflict is to be overlooked.
|
Citaat:
|
There are simply too many military assets available across the world to permit a policing role without first launching a high tech military assault. The vast proliferation of arms in the world is a legacy of the cold war and the influence of the military industrial establishment. There cannot, I would therefore argue, be a successful and just R2P policy without first successfully implementing a global disarmament program. Yes R2P has its merits, but first we need to reform the UN charter and dramatically reduce arms across the global community.
|
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...rnational-law/