The Political and Security Consequences of Responsibility to Protect in Syria

International Crisis in 1990s led to gross violation of human rights including mass atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing as well. at the end of 1990s it was crystal clear that Humanitarian Intervention doctrine can not give a proper answer to humanitarian disasters. The Humanitarian Intervention doctrine has no Powerful legal bases in International Customary Law and treaty based International Common Law. Deficiencies of this doctrine led the international community towards the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. According to R to P, sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility. R to P makes concentration on prevention and halt of crimes including “genocide, war crimes, crime against humanity”. It recognizes low intensified military measures in case of deadlock of UNSC and failure of all diplomatic means.
Despite the fact that most of international organizations like UNHRC in their frequent reports and resolutions referred to commitment of atrocity crimes in Syria but due to lack of international support the doctrine was not implemented. This article is about to discuss about the legality of Humanitarian Intervention in Syria and the latest development of this doctrine within the framework of Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Regarding the subject matter not only we survey the treaty base International Common Law, Customary International Common Law, UNSC and GA resolutions and documents, international legal texts, practices of states and International organizations but also the author survey the political and security consequences of R to P implementation in Syria.