Since NATO’s decision to resort to force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, without UN Security Council authorisation, and since the illicit invasion of Iraq by American troops and their current occupation of Iraqi territory, the United Nations and other multilateral institutions have suffered a serious weakening of their influence. Nonetheless, a properly functioning multilateralism is indispensable for international security and for the maintenance of stability in today’s multipolar world. European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) should find its ‘place in the sun’ in order to save future generations from the scourge of war, to battle against violations of basic human rights and injustice, in order to guarantee security and international peace. Controversy surrounding the question of protection of the population and human rights has led to the elaboration of a new concept of protection that could, in extreme cases, include the international community’s right of ‘humanitarian intervention’. What, then, is this concept, now completely integrated in the French system following publication of the White Paper on security and national defence?⁽¹⁾ How should it be applied correctly, and what role can be played by ESDP, which is closely linked to NATO structures?

The Responsibility to Protect the Population

The concept of ‘the responsibility to protect the population’ comes from the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).⁽²⁾ This Commission, independent but heavily supported by the Canadian government, was set up (with a one-year mandate) to meet UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s challenge to the international community in September 2000: to look for the answer to the dilemmas created by humanitarian crises set against the principle of the inviolability of state sovereignty.⁽³⁾ In 2001 the ICISS published the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ concept. It is based on the notion that every sovereign state has the duty to protect its citizens with respect to human rights; that it has a duty towards its own people. If a state fails to respect this obligation, or seems incapable of doing so, the international community should assume that responsibility in its place, in order to maintain peace and security. The notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’, which could indicate a degree of interference, was thus transformed into the ‘Responsibility to Protect’, a term that seemed to be less contentious, putting population protection before political interests. Interventions for purely humanitarian reasons, like providing food, medicine and other health-related equipment, have been recognised by customary law.⁽⁴⁾

Beyond the opposition of intervention and sovereignty, this new paradigm lays down clearly that the response to large-scale atrocities consists not only of the duty to react, but also of continuous commitment to prevent conflict and to rebuild after the event. The ICISS states specifically that ‘the Security Council should be the first port of call on any matter relating to military intervention for human protection purposes’. Furthermore, it emphasises that the responsibility to protect could equally be assumed by the General Assembly, or by regional or collective organisations, if the Security Council does not intervene, or does so too late.