The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention

In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.

«COOL AND CLEAN»: 10-year outcomes of structural prevention in the Swiss sports setting

The body of evidence on structural prevention is scarce and needs further development. This study contributes to international research by analysing 10-year outcomes of a multicomponent programme promoting a healthy sports setting in Switzerland. Data were collected in 2007, 2011 and 2015, enabling a longitudinal perspective on outcomes. Telephone interviews, case studies, online-surveys and analysis of key documents and data were conducted. The programme «cool and clean» is well known and accepted by key partners. Partnering between the health and the sports sector has improved visibly and cantonal ambassadors are well established. Imparting knowledge among coaches and staff works well and the training for a responsible serving of alcohol has improved. However, the implementation of tied funding by cantonal authorities and the codification by sports organisations of «cool and clean» principles in rules and regulations proceeds slowly. Little progress has been made in implementing smoke-free outdoor areas at sport facilities, even on public premises. The study provides some evidence that the multilevel structural approach works. However, the findings suggest that it takes time to implement structural change on every level.

Rethinking the Structural Prevention of Mass Atrocities

Interest amongst scholars and policy decision-makers in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities has grown in recent years. Despite this, many have overlooked problems inherent in the commonly accepted notion of prevention. Crystalized in the Carnegie Commission’s 1997 report, ‘Preventing Deadly Conflict’, prevention has typically been understood in two parts, one addressing impending cases of violence (direct prevention) and the other focusing on the underlying causes of violence (structural prevention). The concept of structural prevention is especially problematic. Commonly defined as the identification and addressing of ‘root causes’, this conceptualisation contains at least two limitations: first, there is an implicit assumption that root causes lead inevitably to violence, and second, there has been a tendency for international actors to decide, in general and global terms, what counts as root causes and how to ameliorate them, downplaying the role of local contexts and overlooking the preventive work of local and national actors. This article argues that the concept of structural prevention needs broadening to incorporate an understanding of the dynamic interaction between the risk that root causes pose, and locally-based mitigation factors that foster resilience. Effective long-term prevention should be based – not only on identifying and ameliorating negative characteristics in countries at risk – but also on contributing to the complex management of diversity. While this makes intuitive sense – and may in fact reflect the reality of how much preventive work is done – such an approach has not hitherto been reflected in conceptual understandings of prevention adopted by the United Nations, as well as academic researchers.