The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle is ill suited for the Essay

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle is ill suited for the international legal system and must be abolished - Essay Example The R2P principle required the states to have the first priority in the protection of its citizens but failure to the concerned state to meet to the needs of its citizens, the international community will have the obligation to intervene. The international community would not wait and watch as it had the responsibility to preserve international peace, but not to enforce the laws of the concerned countries.2 However, the mandate of the principle has been exploited through interpretation of its tenets and through the application by humanitarian countries who intrude on the sovereignty of affected states leading to abuse. As such, it is imperative to note that the R2P principle is ill suited for the international legal system and must be abolished. The R2P principle gives consent to the international community to undertake humanitarian intervention with the aim of maintaining peace. However, narrowing down the concept of intervention implies that the international community can get involved in the internal affairs of a country without the consent of the affected country. That is clearly a violation of state sovereignty, which is in most times accompanied by military force.3 Furthermore, such form of intervention results in violations of fundamental human rights. When military forces from outside the boundaries of the country are involved in peace keeping mission without an obligation to enforce the law, the state of lawlessness is likely to result in a huge number of casualties and fatalities in case of combat.4 The UN Charter 2(4) holds ‘protection of human rights’ as its core purpose but then goes ahead to claim that any state can use force â€Å"in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations†.5 This shows a problem in the interpretation of the mandate of R2P principle given the application of â€Å"force for good† theory. This interpretation is against territorial