A Study of the Application of R2P In Cote D’ivoire and Libya: A Semblance of A Crime of Aggression?

ABSTRACT
As a result of the failure of the UN and the entire international system to protect people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity such as was committed in Rwanda and Srebrenica in 1994 and 1995 respectively, the international system deemed it necessary to settle on a legal and political structure for a united international action (humanitarian intervention) that will protect people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This led to the institution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine which was unanimously adopted by UN member states at the 2005 World Summit held in New York. The main objective of R2P is to guide the UN and the international system in protecting people against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This dissertation uses the interventions in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya under the R2P doctrine as case studies to investigate whether the operationalization of the R2P concept has in principle and practice protected the rights of citizens or otherwise perpetuated crimes. More specifically, the study seeks to find out if the use of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P is a semblance of the Crime of Aggression. The study is based on the theory of humanitarian imperialism. Humanitarian imperialism is chosen as the relevant theory for this study because of its assumption that humanitarian interventions can become problematic for developing countries within which the intervention is carried out. This assumption is useful in determining whether or not this was the case in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya under the R2P doctrine. As a case study, the research employs a qualitative approach, using semistructured interviews and purposive sampling technique, to collect the requisite data from the target population. The findings of the study shows that operationalization of R2P in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya has not protected the rights of the citizens but rather ascended crime perpetuation since some atrocities committed against citizens in both Côte d’Ivoire and Libya were committed by operators of R2P in both states. Also, the findings of the study reveal that the application of R2P in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, specifically the use of military force, has resulted in acts that could be likened to the crime of aggression. This finding is therefore a critique against the R2P doctrine. In conclusion, the study recommends that all states, specifically states in Africa, should make use of democratic institutions this is largely due to the similar deep-seated concerns of unconstitutional changes of government and territory occupation which births such atrocities and rights abuse. Given that democratic institutions are effectively in place and followed, there would be no need for humanitarian intervention hence, R2P.