TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
UN R2P resolution substantive or procedural? Experts say both
Experts believe Indonesia could have taken a better position on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in a recent United Nations vote on the matter.
Change Size
A partial UN General Assembly voting record on a resolution on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). (JP/Swi Handono)
W
hile the United Nations has routinely invoked the responsibility to protect (R2P) to justify international interventions on humanitarian grounds, a recent vote by the UN General Assembly suggests that ideas for its implementation are varied.
Indonesian diplomats defended the country’s vote against the UNGA resolution as a principled stance against the procedural – not substantive – aspects of the agenda, amid backlash from rights groups and international relations observers.
But some experts suggest that the resolution was both procedural and substantive and that Jakarta was in a unique position to inform further debate on the matter.
R2P is an established international norm intended to prevent crimes against humanity. It was agreed upon by all UN member states, including Indonesia, in a 2005 summit.
A vote last month to officially put R2P on the annual UNGA agenda after years of informal talks received support from 115 UN member states, with another 28 abstaining and a handful of others not present for the vote.
Indonesia found itself in a group of 15 naysayers – alongside China, Russia and North Korea – but insisted that its vote was in principled opposition to what it considered a premature plan to discuss the UN mechanism more widely.
But bringing the topic to a larger forum could be the next logical step to answering Indonesia’s concerns, said Asia-Pacific Center for the Responsibility to Protect (APR2P) director Alexander Bellamy.
