Disarmament

When, if ever, is it appropriate for states to take military action against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state? This issue is being studied by the Peace Task Group, which was been formed to help the church develop a comprehensive policy addressing appropriate actions in support of peoples living in conflict.

What Is the Responsibility to Protect?

The international community today faces the urgent challenge of building consensus on when and how to protect people caught in new, large-scale conflict when their government is unable or unwilling to end the harm, or is itself the perpetrator.

Sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe-from mass murder and rape, from starvation-but when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.

In 2000, the Secretary-General of the United Nations challenged the international community to try to forge consensus on when and how intervention should occur, and under whose authority. The Canadian government, in response to that challenge, established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which developed "the responsibility to protect."

The responsibility to protect explores the "right of humanitarian intervention" and attempts to build consensus on the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take military action against another state to protect people at risk in that other state.

Top

Basic Concepts

• State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself.
• Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression, or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of sovereignty yields to the international responsibility to protect. [1]
• Prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to prevention.
• However, in situations of compelling human need, where prevention options have been exhausted, extreme cases warrant military intervention.
• Following military intervention there is a responsibility to rebuild.

1. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, p. XI, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 2001.

Top

Objectives

• To establish clearer rules, procedures, and criteria for determining whether, when, and how to intervene.
• To establish the legitimacy of military intervention when necessary and after all other approaches have failed.
• To ensure that military intervention, when it occurs, is carried out only for the purposes proposed, is effective, and is undertaken with proper concern to minimize the human costs and institutional damage that will result.
• To help eliminate, where possible, the causes of conflict while enhancing the prospects for durable and sustainable peace. [2]

2. The Responsibility to Protect, p. 11. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2006.

Top

Key Components

The Responsibility to Prevent:

The responsibility to protect implies an accompanying responsibility to prevent. Prevention is aided with support from the international community through development assistance and/or support for local initiatives to advance good governance, human rights, mediation, and other efforts to promote dialogue or reconciliation. International support for prevention may also take the form of applying tough, perhaps even punitive, measures such as economic sanctions.

The Responsibility to React:

When a state is unable or unwilling to redress situations of compelling human need, then interventionary measures by other members of the broader community of states may be required. These measures may include political, economic, or judicial measures, and in extreme cases-but only in extreme cases-they may also include military action.

The Responsibility to Rebuild:

If military intervention is undertaken because of a breakdown or abdication of a state's own capacity or authority in discharging its responsibility to protect or react, there should be a genuine commitment to helping to build a durable peace, and promoting good governance and sustainable development.

The Critical Issue for Churches

The United Church of Canada, like its ecumenical partners at the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, affirms the "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild," i.e., the preventive and rebuilding aspects of the responsibility to protect. The area where a clear statement is still lacking is on the responsibility to react, with military implications. Studies show that although churches differ on the use of force for human protection purposes, they agree on the essential role of prevention with the aim of tackling the crisis before it reaches large-scale conflict stages. Protection or military intervention should then be the final resort only when prevention has failed.

Top

The United Church and the Responsibility to Protect

The most recent comprehensive United Church policy on humanitarian intervention with military implications dates back to 1994. In that policy, the General Council stated that "imposed outside solutions seldom work and conflicts may be suppressed for a short time, only to resume later." Stating that peace is not simply the absence of war, but a sustainable state of well-being and of harmony among people and with nature, the resolution affirmed the church's commitment to foster conditions for peace through development projects, human rights work, and public witness for justice.

But more recent United Church responses increasingly reinforce the need to look more closely at if, how, and when humanitarian intervention with military implications becomes necessary. Two recent United Church responses below illustrate the need for further exploration:

1. We oppose the use of military force.

The U.S. and British authorities have justified the war in Iraq as a humanitarian action to liberate Iraqis from a tyrannical regime, and to protect Iraqis- and indeed the world-from possible attacks using weapons of mass destruction. The joint Canadian Council of Churches/Project Ploughshares/KAIROS statement on Iraq, "Prepare for Peace in Iraq," generated over 40,000 signatures, including endorsements of individual congregations from a variety of denominations in Canada. This extraordinary response speaks to a powerful aversion to the resort to force, especially if the international community does not authorize it. In this case, Canadian churches rejected the humanitarian rationales for war.

2. We appeal for military intervention.

In the case of Darfur, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Church appealed to the Government of Canada for more coercive intervention to protect the most vulnerable populations in the area. While the response of the Canadian Council of Churches, KAIROS, and denominations in Canada on the Congo and Sudan called for more effective protection of vulnerable civilians, it did not call for an end to external military intervention.

For more information on the work of the Peace Task Group, and The United Church of Canada's work on the responsibility to protect and the rights of vulnerable peoples in conflict, please contact: