173International Law and Responsibility to Protect:South Asian Perspective
Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik*

Abstract
The evolution of responsibility to protect (R2P) is a result of an
attempt to change the nature and character of dynamics of humanitarian
intervention as questions of its legality gained momentum post the cold
war period with a particular focus on human rights. It changed thecontours of humanitarian intervention. One of the foremost criticisms isthe selective implementation of R2P. There still exists an ambiguity about
the nature of R2P and there have been different interpretations since theadoption of the R2P concept at the world summit in 2005. This paperargues that dichotomy of evolution of international standards like the R2P
on one hand and continued inadequacies of evaluating the legal characterof such norms poses challenges for implementation of international law.
Key words: Responsibility to protect, Developing Countries,
South Asia, Universal Application of International Law

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: A PRIMER
The notion that States and the world community have a ‘Responsibility toProtect’ population has led to a debate about the efficacy of its role from conflict
prevention to peace keeping to international administration, and has become ananathema for developing countries. The evolution of responsibility to protect is a
result of an attempt to change the nature and character of dynamics ofhumanitarian intervention as questions of its legality gained momentum post
the cold war period with a particular focus on human rights. It thus changed thecontours of humanitarian intervention. One of the foremost criticisms is theselective implementation of responsibility to protect. There still exists an
ambiguity about the nature of responsibility to protect. Since the adoption of the
responsibility to protect concept at the World Summit in 2005 there have been

174

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

different interpretations as to whether it is a legal norm or a political norm oran emerging norm. There are differing points of view alluding to the concept as
an emerging norm; as an obligation and political responsibility in the constituent
documents like the High Level Panel report and the Summit document.
Therefore, there is a need to develop a conceptual framework on issues ofsovereignty and non intervention in the Asian context as responsibility toprotect has become an anathema for developing countries. It is believed that
norms that govern international law should wholly reflect regional attitudes ininternational law making process.
In this background, the paper is divided into three parts. It would be argued
that dichotomy of evolution of international standards like the responsibility toprotect on one hand and continued inadequacies of evaluating the legal
character of such norms poses challenges for implementation of internationallaw. An appropriate understanding of the legal options for international
cooperation, manifest with developing countries approach is the key for clear
and strong sense of implementation of international law. Part I of the paper
deals with the interpretation of some important works on humanitarian
intervention and Constituent documents leading to the evolution of the
responsibility to protect doctrine. Part II deals with the survey of attitudes ofcountries in the South Asian towards the notion of responsibility to protect,followed by an appraisal of the region’s approach towards the said notion. Someconcluding observations are presented in Part III of the paper.

I. THE SETTING
A. Interpretation of Some Works on Humanitarian Intervention
The period of 1980s and 1990s saw the powerful States demand for a ‘rightto protect’ or a ‘right to intervene’ in the matters of violation of fundamental
human rights within developing countries. With this emerging trend, they are
now asking for the ‘duty to intervene’. Justification for humanitarian
intervention during that period was for the most part enunciated by Henry
1

2

Schemers and Fernando Teson . Through their works, they laid the foundation
towards an obligation to intervene during the recent decades. Their works
consistently revolved around the ‘higher’ law of human rights, with a specificInternational Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

175

focus on the evolution of a ‘higher’ law of human rights and an emerging
obligation to intervene in matters relating to violation of human rights.
Schemers recognizes that the principle of non-intervention is ‘strongly
embedded in international law’, but asks: ‘should that remain so’? According tohim, non-intervention and the right of a government to stay in power are3

outdated. The obligations under modern international law must be corrected.

Interestingly, however, he does not underestimate the problems of application ofsuch an obligation to intervene, in view of the possibilities of abuse and suggests
4

the following three rules.

1. Hegemonic intervention within a power bloc to undo a change ofgovernment in a State that no longer conforms to the accepted ideology
should not be permitted.
2. No intervention serving the power politics of another State should bepermitted; and3. It should be objectively established that the domestic situation in the
country concerned is contrary to the rules of international law.
Considering all these layers of complexity, he concludes among other things
that ‘the international responsibility entails a right, in extreme cases even a5

duty, to intervene when States severely infringe human rights.

Teson is another ‘humanitarian’ scholar of the 1980s. In the debate on
humanitarian intervention, he posits two ‘horns of dilemma’ that confront the6international community:

Many States unilaterally intervene by force in order to put an end
to serious human rights violations? Or should States insteadabsolutely abide by the prohibition of the force as embodied in
Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, and thus refrain fromintervening in such cases?
According to Teson, the second horn of his dilemma:

176

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

It entails the seemingly morally intolerable proposition that theinternational community, in the name of the non-intervention principle, isimpotent to combat massacres, acts of genocide, mass murder and widespread
torture.
The justifications put forward by Teson:
The best interpretation of relevant treaty materials and statepractice is that humanitarian intervention is consistent with the7present international legal order.

In response to such observation, one is prompted to ask whether suchinterpretation of the treaty materials and frequent interventions (based on suchinterpretations) by the developed States find justification among the legal
8community as a valid State practice. The point of departure is between the twohorns of dilemma, so as to build a bridge between the debates relating tohumanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect so as to avoid or at least9

to contain the ‘dangers of abuse’ and ‘foreigner’s lack of knowledge’ of the Statesin which they are intervening. Any number of examples from the recent history
with reference to Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq etc exemplify this situation.
Further, there are some inherent fallacies that need to be analyzed. The
argument that international community is under a duty to act in cases ofhuman rights violations is questionable to certain extent. On international
plane, the concept of human rights is quite diverse. It depends much upon the
traditional and cultural diversity of nation states. When there is no unanimity
in the fundamental human rights, how can anyone envisage their protection
and that too via military intervention? Is the international community mature
enough to guarantee correct protections to the violation, wherever they occur?
Analogous to this is the word of caution by Kofi Annan himself while presenting‘The Secretary General’s Report to the Millennium Assembly in March 2000, he
recognized that humanitarian intervention remains’ sensitive issue, fraught
with political difficulty and not susceptible to easy answers’

10

There are no easy answers to such problems. Further, World Summit
Outcome document states that ‘Responsibility to Protect advocates that eachInternational Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

177

State has the primary responsibility to protect its people, that, if it fails, thenthe Security Council has it, that, if the Council fails, a regional organization has
it, and that, if that too fails, other individual States have it’. Three questions
stem out – Is there such a hierarchy meant to exist (sic)? Why is it that this
responsibility to protect is cast upon the Security Council, which isconstitutionally mandated to play no role at all in economic and social
development? And what kinds of protection can the Council accord to the11

country after the ‘surgical’ operation. It is a difficult and complex problem tostudy and as a point of departure, it is germane to study the implications of the
12concept of R2P for developing countries and South Asia in particular. Researchon this aspect is anything but sporadic in academic literature in the Asian
region and it is hoped that this work will make a contribution to this area.

II. WHITHER REGIONAL ATTITUDES IN SOUTH ASIA?
South Asia has rich ancient, cultural and historical traditions that makethis region a sub-unit. In spite of such similarities, the South Asian region is oneof the least connected regions that is prone to conflicts and confronted withproblems of social inequities, water sharing and refugee problems. Some basis
for such situations in the region was in the aftermath of decolonization; religious
or ethnic factors and relations with big States that countries in the region
maintained. Consequently, States in the region were unable to evolve a regional
13

approach to regional or international issues. All the factors have its cumulative
impact on the respective State’s perspectives on international law including
issues of use of force and humanitarian intervention. With the idea of evolving
regional cooperation, South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation
14(SAARC) was established in 1985. According to the SAARC Charter, the ideaof regional cooperation for achieving social progress, economic growth andcultural development, is based on principles of sovereignity, territorial integrity,
political equality, and independence of all Member States with key emphasis on
discussion of multilateral issues affecting the region. In the aftermath ofrelations between and amongst countries in the region, that led to conflicts bothinter-state and internal violence resulting in circumstances of humanitarian
emergencies, it is necessary to evaluate of attitudes of South Asian countries on
issues of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. However,178

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

2013

別冊

there has been little analysis of attitudes of South Asian countries with respect
to responsibility to protect in the academic literature. With the region being
15

considered as ‘leader in development of third world’ ; ‘economic power house’

16

and comprising of nuclear powers with geo-strategic importance, only makes
such a study imperative to examine the impact of the region if any, on theinternational law making and norm creation process in the current context ofour discussion.
Few countries in the region have been taken as a sampler to assess theSouth Asian attitudes towards the notion of responsibility to protect, in order tocover some distance in this project.
A. International Law and Responsibility to Protect in South Asia: An
Overview
1. India
During the UN reform meeting held in 2005, India put forward the thoughton the issue of “responsibility to protect” that it is essential to exercise necessary
caution and responsibility and categorically stated that ‘it is against any kind of‘military humanism’ or ideological basis that would give legitimacy to right of
humanitarian intervention. For developing an international norm on this aspect,
India offered a pragmatic prescription necessitating the need to study theconcept of responsibility to protect’s limitations and the obligations it poses andmost importantly the methodology for exercising it. Besides the inherent
complexities that complicate the actions of States in protecting human rights
within their domestic jurisdiction, India expressed the need to have political will
for calling it a halt to grave acts like genocide and gross violation of human17

rights.

On 24 July 2009, India issued a statement

18

through its permanent

representative to the UN, at the General Assembly Plenary Meeting on
Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, “…It has been India’s consistentview that the responsibility to protect its population is one of the foremost
responsibilities of every state. India also expressed that ‘Sovereignty as
responsibility has, however, always been a defining attribute for nation States
where safeguards for protection of fundamental rights of citizens areInternational Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

179

constitutionally provided. On top of it, India expressed that international
community should resort to diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means,
to help protect populations in the specific situations of genocide, ethnic
cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. India further affirmed that“Willingness to take Chapter VII measures under the UN Charter can only be ona case by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations
with a specific proviso that such action should only be taken when peacefulmeans are inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail in discharging
their duty” (sic). Indeed India advocated for a safeguard mechanism against
misuse of new norms created by the international community.
Further India upholds that ‘internal affairs’ are not subject to externalintervention. The objections have come from two distinct quarters- thediplomatic community and the policy analysts. The diplomats concern
themselves with the scope of actions that grow of such doctrine. It is seen as adevelopment that would lead to a foreign intercession in a sovereign land. Policy
analysts see it as a reek of a neo-imperial ethos designed to deprive weakregimes across the world of their rights to govern their own affairs. However,19

India continues to support the progressive development of the principle.

In the background of events relating to invocation of the responsibility toprotect doctrine in Libya and Syria and earlier actions of NATO in former
Yugoslavia, India’s perception of issues relating to application of R2P seems to
be taking shape towards having a regional consultation with the Arab League,
African Union before concluding their view points. It is largely an outcome ofthe discussions India had with emerging likeminded powers like Brazil and
20

South Africa.

2. Pakistan
Pakistan’s position regarding the doctrine makes it clear that theapplication of the doctrine should not contravene the principle of State
sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. This is aclear indication from the statement by the Pakistani Ambassador to UN, Mr.
21

Abdullah Hussain Haroon. While addressing a plenary session of the UN
General Assembly on “Responsibility to Protect”, he stated that Pakistan had no180

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

difference with the principle on the necessity to protect innocent civilians.
However, the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians rests firstwith the State, and sovereignty should remain the overarching principle forcontemporary international relations.
It was further emphasized that responsibility to protect should not becomea basis for contravening the principles of non-interference and non-intervention.
The international community’s responsibility within responsibility to protect
was to provide appropriate, diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means,in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, which deal with threats
to peace. Moreover, responsibility to protect should be implemented on a caseby-case basis, not as a norm but an exception. Given that situations leading toaction based on responsibility to protect were often the result of
underdevelopment and poverty, the commitment to help States build capacity
22

remains the best prevention. Pakistan believes that all cases addressed byresponsibility to protect could be prevented if available mechanisms under
23

international law pertaining to genocide etc. Interestingly, for Pakistan, theroot cause of all these problems is under development and hence advocates ahuman right to development that could give access to developmental needs likefood, shelter, fair terms of trade, debt relief, and adequate access to finance andtechnology and thus the necessity of helping States, which are under stress, attheir request, before conflicts and crises break out.

24

It is a preventive

mechanism to avoid any future internal conflicts.
3. Sri Lanka
The civil war situation in Sri Lanka lasted for many years killing thousandsof civilians and causing enormous sufferings to Tamil and Sinhalese population
leading to humanitarian crises. It galvanized the debate relating to theapplication of the responsibility to protect doctrine. On 31 March 2011, UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released the report of ‘the Panel of Experts on
accountability in Sri Lanka’ commissioned in 2010. The Panel concluded that “awide range of serious violations of international humanitarian and humanrights law were committed by the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, someof which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. While thegovernment was found to have put in place measures to address accountability,

International Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

181

the panel found them deeply flawed, not meeting the international standards forindependence and impartiality, and thus, ineffective. However, the Sri Lankan
25

government rejected the report as “biased, baseless and unilateral”. It also
challenged the authority and scope of the Human Rights Council as well as theoffice of the Secretary General in such instances. It has been argued by thegovernment that the protection of civilians is a much broader and wider concept,
with wider application, whereas the responsibility to protect is very much
focused on the four major crimes. In such a situation, it is pertinent to examine
Sri Lanka’s views on efficacy and sustainability of the responsibility to protect
doctrine as reflected in the UN General Assembly debate on responsibility toprotect in 2009. Sri Lanka expressed the need to develop a common ground for
implementation of the responsibility to protect by avoiding selective applicationof the doctrine, with a need to clearly define the basis for invocation of thedoctrine. While participating in the debate the Sri Lankan representative
Palitha Kohona noted “Member States are particularly sensitive to the way inwhich this new intervention is to be operationalized. This is borne out of thehistorical experiences of many countries that have emerged from centuries ofcolonial rule”. Some of the key questions raised were definition, scope anddetermination of a situation that warrants intervention. This need was felt todispel notions about the possible misapplication of the R2P doctrine. In deciding
its application, Sri Lanka affirmed the need to clarify the application of the R2P
in region specific contexts thus highlighting the need for regional initiatives
focusing on the history, culture and value systems of the region. The cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s view point on the invocation of the R2P is complementaryrole of the doctrine with State consent as the key basis for its application, if
26

any.

4. Bangladesh
Despite the hiccups to the acceptance to the norm of R2P in the region, theattitude of Bangladesh

27

is a striking feature. Bangladesh affirmed therequirement to balance the protection mechanisms with the international legal
principles while subscribing to the concept of R2P ‘as a powerful instrument toimpede humanitarian tragedies’. According to Bangladesh, responsibility toprotect vulnerable population vests primarily with the individual State and thatinternational community should ensure right to development of all nations.

182

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

Bangladesh further emphasized the significance of domestic jurisdiction, noninterference, territorial integrity and mechanisms of peaceful settlement ofdisputes as encapsulated in the UN Charter, before invoking international
responsibility to protect vulnerable population. On the other hand, it reiterated
a view point that is not peculiar to South Asia. Bangladesh took a cautious
approach to the notion of R2P with an allegiance to all encompassing
international norms that should establish responsibility and accountability sothat such norms do not just become a matter of convenience for the international
community.
B. Responsibility to Protect: An Appraisal of Attitudes of South Asia
From an analysis of survey of thoughts of some nations in the South Asia, it
could be stated that Westphalian principles like sovereignity, non – interference,
territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of international disputes are sacrosanct
for countries in the region. It is important to note that jurists like Mani argued
that ‘respect for sovereignity and non intervention are two cornerstones ofinternational peace in the contemporary world’.

28

However, there areasymmetries in the region of South Asia. Although there are common threats
like poverty, climate change, under development, terrorism etc in the region but
there are threat perceptions relating to India’s role and presence in the region.
This creates asymmetrical patterns relating to the need to have a regional
collective security mechanism in the region. In 1985 when SAARC came into
being, its objective was to improve the economic conditions of the region, andexcluded security issues from its agenda. Although security multilateralism in
traditional form is associated with collective security, from the regional
attitudes, it may be opined that Asia in general has been unwelcoming to29collective security. Moreover, a regional security structure is difficult to achieve
30

without cooperative security architecture. Article X

31of the SAARC Charterprohibits discussions on any contentious issues and it would most certainly
stand in the way of establishing a regional mechanism to pursue the concept.
Adherence to Westphalian principles by States in the region matters much more
for disputes within the region of South Asia. For instance the Islamabad
Declaration of the 12th SAARC Summit (2004) stated that members of the
SAARC “are particularly mindful of the security concerns of small States. It
calls for a strict adherence to the UN Charter, international law and universally

International Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

183

accepted principles relating to sovereignity and territorial integrity and peaceful32

settlement of disputes. The fact of the matter is that, States are influenced bysome of the parameters like geography, neighbours, government structures etc
33

in their behavior towards developing a perspective of international law and its
implementation in their respective territories. South Asian region is no
exception to this phenomenon. And even the geographic situation in South Asia
makes countries wary of issues relating to intervention.
As mentioned in the foregoing, South Asia’s aspirations originated in the
background of their colonial history and regional conflicts. The governing
patterns basing on which South Asian States structured their thoughts is‘political realism’

34

with power as the end of political actions in municipal andinternational arena. As an outcome of this pattern, South Asian States are
doubtful if there are legal and moral connotations in the intention to interveneor responsibility to protect, because in State centric international system, it isquestionable if foreign policies are based on moral contents. Therefore, the normof non-interference is important for the region because imbalances in powersituations lead to elements of suspicion as intervention to protect enhances thepower situation of countries. If we are seeking this postulate as the purpose ofinternational law, then one can deduce some formidable questions, as viewed
from the South Asian perspective. Let us assume then, if the purpose of public
international law is regulation of conduct of States through multilateral
institutions, then the question that need to be raised is who are theinternational law makers? Whether in the making of international law, concernsof cultural relativism and moral pluralism are accommodated? When theestablishment of the United Nations became a reality and the process of
decolonization has started, all nations have become sovereign and equal
recipients’ of rights and duties in international law. In the context of such awidened range of responsibility, picking up a bolder proposition, Costas
Douzinas says, “...‘humanity’ cannot act as the a priori normative source and is35

mute in the matter of legal and moral rules’ ” Within this scheme, it should be
noted that there is need for conceptual clarity based on factors like cultural
relativism towards reconciling of international legal regimes and easy modelinternational law frameworks should not be assumed too quickly. International36

law is supposed to be universally applicable among all States in equal measure.

184

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

As Yasuaki Onuma observes, ‘we must grasp international law from atranscivilizational perspective to understand, appreciate and assess
37

international law’. Underlying the significance of universality of internationallaw and with a strong plea for Asian African countries’ contribution todevelopment of international law, R.P.Anand, a foremost international lawyer
38

who worked on the historical traditions of international law, aptly writes:

As we study and look at international law from historicalperspective, especially in the context of the role of Asian and even
African countries in its origin and development, there are several
questions which have been raised but not satisfactorily answered.
After the fifteenth century, Europeans went to Asian countries fortheir own needs and developed not only active trade andcommercial relations, but intimate political relations as well withthese independent Asian communities, especially in India and theEast Indies. What rules of inter-state conduct applied between
these European countries and Asian states? Without some common
rules of international law, Europeans could not have survived in
Asian countries.
A case in context is Libya. Devoid of any common rules of application of
responsibility to protect in Libya complicated the debate of its application
leading to a divide on international consensus for the norm, but as it has been
noted, as long as the topic is high on the agenda of both Western and nonWestern actors, there is hope that meaningful progress can be made.
Unprecedented debates about R2P such as those in Brazil and India certainly
show not everybody’s views are set in stone.”

39

With this view point, Statesshould consider the implications of political questions that have consequences40

on matters of peace and security in a decentralized international system.

III. TASKS AHEAD: SOME PREFATORY REMARKS
There is dichotomy of evolution of international standards like the R2P on
one hand and continued inadequacies or disagreements of evaluating the legal
character of such norms which poses challenges for implementation ofInternational Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

185

international law. Analyzing the relation between cooperation, harmonizationand intervention, V.S.Mani remarks:
The expansion in the international community’s concern which has
been insulated from traditional international law, has taken placein order to stress the need for international cooperation andharmonization of national action, within the meaning of Article 1 (4)of the United Nations Charter. Where cooperation is envisaged,
dictatorial intervention is not morally and legally justifiable. What
has expanded is international ‘concern’ and not ‘international
41

jurisdiction’ in respect of the implementation of human rights.

The problem is not with the fundamentals of the need to protect but themodalities by which protection ought to be triggered, conditioned and regulated
so as to eventually benefit people. While working on a project earlier on‘International Law of Humanitarian Assistance in Situations of Disasters’, theauthor of this paper reflected upon the scope and urgency of the issue of
methods of humanitarian assistance to be addressed, which is analogous in thecurrent context:
The notion of sovereignty should result in unified understanding
for inter-state cooperation as the transition of international law has
been from confrontation to cooperation. Such cooperation isimperative for the realization of human rights of individuals at all
times i.e. during peace and conflict. In case of arguments of absolute
sovereignty as obstacles to responsibility of States in protection ofindividuals, it is imperative to examine the functional
interdependence between protection mechanisms, human rights
and international responsibility. This interdependence if viewed in
the perspective of international cooperation and shared
responsibility, then it may enable States to shape responses
accordingly by accommodating views of Asian States at large. It
may provide a basis towards a definitive study of aspects of
42

international responsibility to protect. (Emphasis added).

186

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

Emmerich Vattel recognized a long time back, the need to accommodate theinterests of the community of nations. It may also be one among many strategies
by “which states and peoples pursue their interests and undertake joint action
43

in accordance with felt necessities and values” It is apt to mention that forinternational law to be universal; South Asian attitudes interalia seems to
depict the need to have system of United Nations that epitomizes
multilateralism but not diverse multiple interests. Of relevance here is an44

observation made by Yogesh Tyagi , ‘…. about the problems of multiple decision
making with Member States of the General Assembly and the Security Council
having their respective self interests, [and] because of which countries might beunwilling to join expensive humanitarian missions. For a collectivity like theUN so large and ideologically diverse, it is important to find out views ofdeveloping countries on the nature of international humanitarian assistancethat could well serve as a guiding factor in order to ascertain political, normativeand operational dilemmas. As a result, it is imperative to situate work relating
to responsibility to protect norms within old and new paradigms of sovereignity
and to ask how far it travels in the direction of purposes that should be achieved.
There is growth of the discipline of international law ever since theestablishment of the United Nations. If such was the maturity of thought
displayed by the international community, a similar understanding isimperative to clarify certain standards pertaining to humanitarian intervention
that remain unresolved for years.
As Joseph Slaughter puts it, human rights has now become a large
45

corporation and should be renamed ‘Human Rights Inc’. Drawing an analogy
from this statement, do we have to abandon our attempt to understand theworld – its norms and values – in framing of international legal principles andallow ‘Humanitarian Inc’ to take over?

International Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

187

Notes
* Associate Professor and Director, Center for Postgraduate Legal Studies; Executive Director,
Center for South Asian Legal Studies, Jindal Global Law School, O.P.Jindal Global University,
Sonipat, NCR of Delhi, India. Paper presented at the Second Doshisha Conference on ‘Asian
Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention in the 21st Century’, 25-26 June 2012, Kyoto, Japan,
organized by Graduate School of Global Studies and CISMOR, Doshisha University, UNESCO
Asia-Pacific Office and UNITAR. The author wishes to thank Professors Masanori Naito andPierre Sane of Doshisha University for the invitation and fellowship that enabled participationin the conference. Special thanks to Moulika Arabhi for all the support. The views expressedherein are the author’s only, as are any mistakes, errors or omissions. <sdabiru@gmail.com>
1 Henry Schermers, ‘The Obligations to intervene in the Domestic Affairs of States’, in Astrid
J.M.Delissen and Gerard J.Tanja (eds.) Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts: Challenges
Ahead : Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven (Dordrecht:1991), pp.583-594.
2 Fernando Teson, ‘Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality’, (Transnational
Publishers Inc: New York, 2nd ed.1996).
3 V.S.Mani, Humanitarian Intervention Today (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston:2005) at p.214
4 Ibid, p.215. Also see note 1, Schermers at p.590.
5 See note 3, Mani at p.215. Also see, note 1, Schermers at p.592-593.
6 See note 3, Mani at p.218-219. Also see, note 2, Teson at 4.
7 See note 2, Teson at p.5.
8 See note 3, Mani at p.228.
9 See note 3, Mani p. at 221. Also see, note 2, Teson at p.101-115.
10 ‘We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty First Century’, A/54/2000.
11 See note 3, Mani at p.297-298.
12 The region comprises of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives,Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Some classifications even include Afghanistan and Iran. See http://millenniumindicators.un.org/
unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#asia
13 Uttara Sahasrabuddhe, Regionalisation Process in South and South East Asia: A Comparative
Study. Available at http://www.asianscholarship.org/asf/ejourn/articles/Sahasrabuddhe.pdf
14 Founding Members are Sri Lanka, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Afghanistan joined SAARC in 2007. See http://www.saarc-sec.org
15 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61340/lucian-w-pye/south-asia-in-world-politics. Also see,
Devin T.Hagerty (ed.), South Asia in World Politics (Rowman and Littlefield: 2005).
16 Happymon Jacob, Review Article, Amitendu Palit (ed.) South Asia: Beyond the Financial Crisis(World Scientific: 2011), The Hindu Newspaper, 6 March 2012.
17 http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/DevelopingCountryStatementsonR2P.pdf
18 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/India_ENG.pdf
19 Sumit Ganguly, ‘The Morality of Responsibility’, The Asian Age Newspaper, February 22, 2012;
http://www.asianage.com/columnists/morality-responsibility-577
20 See G.Parthasarathy, Brave New World, India Abroad (New York), April 15, 2011. Available at
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/190-crisis-in-libya/3446-g-parthasarathybrave-new-world21 ‘Implementing “responsibility to protect” must not violate state sovereignty: Pakistan’, The
Nation Newspaper, July 26, 2009; http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-dailyenglish-online/International/26-Jul-2009/Implementing-responsibility-to-protect-must-not-188

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

別冊

2013

violate-state-sovereignty-Pakistan
22 ibid.
23 “A More Secured World: Our Shared Responsibility”, Report of the Secretary General’s HighLevel Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes. Available at http://www.un.org/secureworld/
24 http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/DevelopingCountryStatementsonR2P.pdf
25 Available at http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-sri-lanka
26 Sri Lanka Statement at the GA Debate on the Responsibility to Protect (2009). Available at
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/2493general-assembly-debate-on-the-responsibility-to-protect-and-informal-interactive-dialogue#debate
27 Bangladesh Statement at the GA Debate on the Responsibility to Protect (2009). Available at
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/Bangladesh.pdf
28 V.S.Mani, “Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Indian Journal of InternationalLaw, 1993, Vol.33, pp.1-26. Also see, B.S.Chimni, “Towards a Third World Approach to NonIntervention: Through the Labyrinth of Western Doctrine”, Indian Journal of International Law,
Vol.20, 1980, pp.243-264.
29 Amitav Acharya, Regional Institutions and Security Order in Asia, http://www.cpdsindia.org/
regionalinstitutions.htm
30 S.D.Muni, Security Architecture in South Asia, Paper written for 5th South Asia Conference on
Cooperative Security Framework for South Asia, 15-16 November 2011, IDSA, New Delhi, http://
www.idsa.in/sac/Report_SessionI.html
31 http://www.saarc-sec.org/SAARC-Charter/5/
32 Islamabad Declaration of January 2004. Available at http://www.saarcsec.org/userfiles/
Summit%20Declarations/12%20-%20Islamabad%20-12th%20SAARC%20Summit,%204-6%20
January%202004.pdf
33 Andrew Guzman, Rethinking International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Society of International Law, Vol.103, March 25-28, 2009, pp.155-157.
34 B.S.Chimni, Improving the Human Conditions of Refugees in Asia in V.S.Mani (ed.) Handbookof International Humanitarian Law in South Asia (New Delhi: OUP 2007), 146-158 at p.147.
35 Costas Douzinas, The Many Faces of Humanitarianism. Available at www.parrhesiajournal.org/
parrhesia02/parrhesia02_douzinas.pdf
36 R.P.Anand, Universality of International Law: An Asian Perspective. Available at http://www.
profrpanand.org/sites/default/files/articles/UniversalityofIL.pdf
37 Onuma Yasuaki, A Transcivilizational Perspective on International Law (Martinus Nijhoff: 2010)
38 R.P.Anand, Studies in International Law and History: Asian Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague and Lancer Books, New Delhi: 2004), p.xii.
39 Cited in Oliver Stuenkel, ‘Emerging Powers and the Responsibility to Protect’ Available at http://
www.postwesternworld.com/2012/04/08/emerging-powers-and-the-responsibility-to-protect/
40 C.Wilfred Jenks, Due Process of Law in International Organizations, in ‘Law In The World
Community, p.103-118 at p.110.
41 See note 3, Mani at p.217.
42 Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, Towards an International Legal Framework For the Protection ofIndividuals in the Event of Disasters in Andrej Zwitter and Hans Zoachim Heintze, International
Law and Humanitarian Assistance: A Crosscut Through Legal Issues Pertaining to
Humanitarianism (Springer Heidelberg:2011), p.129ff.
43 Oscar Schachter, The Relation of Law, Politics and Action in the United Nations, Recueil desInternational Law and Responsibility to Protect: South Asian Perspective

189

Cours 1963, 109 (2), p.160 and 231.
44 Yogesh Tyagi, ‘The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention Revisited’, 16 Michigan Journal ofInternational Law, 1995, pp.883-910 at p.901.
45 As cited in Costas Douzinas, The Many Faces of Humanitarianism. Available at www.
parrhesiajournal.org/ parrhesia02/parrhesia02_douzinas.pdf