Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a liberal and a holistic notion that aims to promote a sense of obligation among individual states as well as the international community, to engage in a manner that prevents violence, promotes peace-making and rebuilds societies during and after mass atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This studyâs understanding of an âInternational Communityâ aligns with the International Scholar Hendry Bullâs (1977, p. 13) definition of the term. He states that an international society exists âwhen a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and also whilst sharing amidst working of common institutionsâ. With this in mind, this book contextualises and streamlines the term âinternational communityâ as the Member States of the UN. Furthermore, their activities within the United Nationâs framework in reference to the Security Council, United Nations Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, entail maintaining peace, security and human rights.
The norm âResponsibility to Protectâ was first introduced in the International Commission, in the Intervention and State Sovereignty report published in 2001 (ICISS 2001). However, Francis Deng brought forth the assumption that sovereignty entails responsibility, much later, in the middle of the 1990s (Deng 2009a, b). This conception argued that the right of a country to protect itself from non-interference by an outsider was conditional, which means that when a state is unable to protect its own population, it stands to lose this right. Deng stated that in those cases, the international community not only has a right, but also a duty to step in (ibid.). Therefore, this means that sovereignty is not absolute and it can be tackled, if human rights are not respected appropriately. The sources of responsibility for R2P interventions, as the ICISS report highlights, are âuniversal human rightsâ and âcommon humanityâ (Welsh and Banda 2010, p. 283) and it is on this premise that the three pillars of R2P have been built: (1) The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing and their incitement. (2) The international community holds a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility. (3) The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other such means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The protection and prevention of human rights is the core objective of R2P. The aspect of âpreventionâ is a pro-active and pre-emptive process aimed at changing conditions that minimise the probability of violence and human rights violations. In contrast, âprotectionâ is a reaction to the (near-in-time) outbreak of such violations. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (n.d.), âhuman rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisibleâ. In this book, I define human rights as those inalienable prerogatives established in international human rights instruments, conventions, declarations and legal instruments under international law.1
Therefore, these human rights and security norms, grounded in the cosmopolitan principle of humanitarianism, has evolved as a unique doctrine (R2P) primarily due to two specific reasons: (1) It was the first major organised initiative of the international community to draw global attention and create responses to address humanitarian crisis and causes. (2) It has redefined the concept of sovereignty by changing its role from âsovereignty as an impunity of statesâ to âsovereignty as a responsibilityâ to protect every individual in the society.
This concept has drawn considerable scholarly attention regarding how to implement this doctrine in a legitimate and a rightful manner, free from political manipulations and abuses, in times of extreme violence and crisis. Media as a witness, promoter and protector of human rights, seemingly has the ability to facilitate an R2P intervention, wherein it is necessary and appropriate. Nevertheless, conventional journalism has been accused of not fulfilling the duty of the protection of human rights and the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities in times of war.
1.1 Why Is Human Rights Journalism Important for R2P?
The coverage of the Crimean War (1853â1856) by William Howard Russell of The Times, is commonly seen as the marker of the beginning of organised efforts to report war to the population at home, using the services of a civilian reporter (Carruthers 2000, pp. 4â5). Since then, the profession of journalism has undergone dynamic changes due to the continuous advancement and development of newer communication technologies, massive growth and competition in the media industry, changes in global socio-political landscapes, and the constantly evolving international relations. This has, on the one hand, changed the way journalists gather and report information about wars, conflicts and other forms of human rights violations, and on the other hand, resulted in media being used as a tool for both peace and war. Nevertheless, conventional journalism has been accused of being either compliant or complicit with the systems that implant and perpetuate violence, injustice and suffering (Shaw 2012; Lynch and McGoldrick 2007; Shaw et al. 2011; Lynch 2008; Galtung 2002). This is because, as scholars argue, the ideology of objectivity inscribed in the principles of conventional journalism, which demand journalists to âjust report the facts as they seeâ, has no meaning in the context of modern journalism, that has evolved and shifted far from its comfortable accommodation within the positivist framework in the early twentieth century, and was developed by Walter Lippman, a writer, reporter and political commentator. According to American Press Institute (n.d.), objectivity was proposed as a scientific approach to news reporting in response to yellow journalism which was practised in abundance back then, wherein exaggeration and sensationalism was used to sell papers by distorting âtruthâ. Nevertheless, the modern-day conventional journalism, which operates within political manipulations, power struggles, lack of journalistic independence, economic constraints, rise of PR agents and organised propaganda ploys, is too restrained by its objectivity convention to search for the truth, expose the lies and the human rights violations, and promote human rights and peace. Additionally, in many instances, conventional journalism has been used as a tool for fuelling conflict and igniting genocides and mass atrocities (see Thompson 2007; McLaughlin 2002). This is the reason why journalism scholars and practitioners have called for âpragmatic objectivityâ (Ward 2008) and actively searched for a form and practice that is more responsive to the needs of journalistsâ societies. The âjournalism of attachmentââ, advocated by correspondents such as Martin Bell, Christine Amanpour and Michael Nicholson, is one such example (Bell 1998) and Peace Journalism (PJ), initially articulated by Johan Galtung (2002) in the mid-1990s, as a new field in the area of conflict resolution. Human Rights Journalism (HRJ), the theme of this book, is another good example.
In the aftermath of the war in Bosnia, Bell claimed that journalists could and should not remain neutral in âthe face of modern evilsâ but they must take the side of the victims and must actively demand attention and action towards the situation. He criticised what he calls âbystander journalismââthe conventional journalistic tradition of keeping a distance and being detached from the news events. He argued that objective and dispassionate journalism does not have a place in the midst of war and human atrocities (McLaughlin 2002, pp. 152â154; Kempf 2003, p. 59, see Bell 1998). Bell also stated that journalists should act responsibly when reporting conflicts; he encouraged reporters to obey their moral responsibility (McLaughlin 2002, p. 178). Nonetheless, to question the validity of objectivity challenges the legitimacy of the profession, and the power it holds. Critics of the journalism of attachment say that drawing a line between the victim and the aggressor will expose and make journalism prone to propaganda. If there is a ârighteousâ side to a conflict then the temptation to leave out information that does not best suit their âtruthâ could go unchecked. According to Galtung, the philosophy of PJ is to prevent violence and war (Galtung 2002) by offering a form of critical reporting of the war and also a set of practical plans and options for journalists (Webel and Galtung 2007, p. 248). Lynch and McGoldrick, who are advocators of PJ, believe that PJ is reflected when editors and reporters make c...