Reflecting upon United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's recent report concerning the third pillar of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), on the "timely and decisive response," two items become clear to me. First is that the third pillar is inherently coercive in nature, even though the report and many RtoP pundits stress that it entails more than merely sanctioning the use of force. Second is that this is unsurprising if we recall that the purpose of RtoP is to ensure the protection of particular human rights (rights against: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing) and that having a right against others necessarily entails, in Kant's words, "an authorization to use coercion." I draw these two conclusions from the report's emphasis on developing a "strategy" and the continued employment of the terms "timely and decisive" response. Both the terms "strategy" and "decisive" are militaristic in character, and so imply a coercive means to the realization of political ends.
Copyright Statement / License for Reuse
All Rights Reserved.
Copyright is held by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Roff, H. M.
"Strategies & Decisiveness: What Is Implied by a “Timely and Decisive Response” for RtoP Situations,"
Human Rights & Human Welfare: Vol. 12:
5, Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/hrhw/vol12/iss5/5