"The Future of the Responsibility to Protect"

Ambassadors
Distinguished panellists
Excellencies
Ladies and Gentlemen

Welcome to the Palais des Nations. It is a privilege to be here with you. Thank you to the Permanent Mission of Hungary and Webster University for organizing this very timely discussion on the future of the Responsibility to Protect. I am glad to see so many of you here, not least the many students because it is critical to involve younger generations when discussing the future. I am pleased to represent the Director-General who regrets that he cannot be here personally but has asked me to deliver his message on this occasion.

“As the world faces a series of conflicts and we approach the 10th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect, it is crucial to ask what works and what does not work with respect to this framework.

We are now heading into a year of major decisions for our future - from the post-2015 development agenda to climate change - and we need to build on the momentum from those discussions to also move ahead on the peace and rights agendas. Not least because there will be no sustainable development in places of major political instability or where rights are violated.

Experience has shown that the extent to which the Responsibility to Protect serves its purpose depends on the willingness and ability of the international community to agree on how to implement it. So far, the Responsibility to Protect has rarely been invoked publicly for coercive measures taken by the Security Council. Only in one case, which you know well – Libya – has the Responsibility to Protect been invoked when imposing United Nations targeted sanctions. This past is essential to reflect on carefully to consider the future of the Responsibility to Protect in more detail.

Yet, the Responsibility to Protect does not always need to be formally invoked to have an effect. In fact, the emphasis put on prevention and on strengthening the capacity of States to protect their people to make international intervention redundant has led to changes in the work of the United Nations. For example, early warning mechanisms have been reviewed and arguably they have become increasingly functional. We need to reinforce this focus on prevention.

Changes have also occurred in the mandates for United Nations peace operations. Since 2011, protection of civilians is always included in the mandate of a new operation. The physical protection of internally displaced persons in South Sudan in United Nations compounds is an example where this change has directly saved many lives. The inclusion of women in peace-processes is another way for the United Nations to strengthen civil society actors in peace negotiations. These changes would have been much more difficult to implement without the acceptance of the Responsibility to Protect as an international norm, despite disagreement about its application in specific cases.

The application of the Responsibility to Protect has been uneven. But the concept is far from irrelevant. It holds potential for the necessary adjustment to address threats to human rights and the well-being of individuals. If we want the concept to realize more of its potential, we also need to address the underlying questions about the role and responsibilities of States and individuals, and about the changing nature of conflicts. And above all, we need to continuously move forward on the prevention agenda.
The distinction between intra- and inter-State conflicts is becoming increasingly artificial. A look at Syria today highlights this like no other conflict. Only when we address all dimensions of current and future conflicts, will the Responsibility to Protect be able to realize its full potential for the benefit of peace, rights and well-being of the people.

I thank you for your strong commitment to a constructive dialogue on how to move ahead with respect to the Responsibility to Protect, and I wish you fruitful deliberations.”