Authorized by the Charter of the United Nations, the United Nation Security Council fulfills its primary task of maintaining international peace and security by acting primarily within Pillars II and III of the Responsibility to Protect. Despite the fact, that the Security Council is the only body entitled to legally authorize an exception to the general prohibition of the use of force, this is only one of many measures it can adopt. In fact, the use of force against the will of a state has only been carried out once, in 2011 in Libya. The hypothesis of the present thesis is that the potential that the Responsibility to Protect offers in addressing crisis situations that could lead to mass atrocities is not fully utilized due to a blockage imposed by a veto from a permanent member state. The rising reproaches that those carrying out the resolutions exceed their mandates by changing the regimes in some states also represent a great challenge. This is caused by different interpretations of the language of the resolutions. Due to major consequences of the Security Council’s inactiveness, as seen primarily in Syria, some suggestions of alternative actions that could be taken by the international community include acting through the United Nations General Assembly and its ˝Uniting for Peace˝ resolution, regional organizations (following the example of the African Union) and intervention by ad hoc coalitions. Since none of the mentioned possibilities represent a suitable alternative to a decision of the Security Council, two petitions in light of the Responsibility not to Veto have arisen. They suggest the permanent members abstain from the use of veto in the cases of four mass atrocities. Their success, however, is questionable, since neither has so far obtained the support from all five permanent members.
|
