Peace, human rights and sovereignty: who is accountable for protection?

Author: Dr. Tewfik HAMEL et Dr. Ali KEFSI

Download the article as PDF

Abstract

The opposition between sovereignty and protection obscures the relationship between peace and human rights. Sovereignty is neither a uniform immunity nor an indivisible political capacity; protection cannot be reduced to armed intervention or to a declared humanitarian intent. The central problem lies in the architecture of responsibility connecting the state concerned, the authorizing institution, the implementing powers, external supporters, and the populations bearing the consequences. A protection policy must therefore be examined at four levels: the legitimacy of its purpose, the legal basis of coercion, the lawfulness of its conduct, and its effects over time. As negotiated between 2001 and 2009, the responsibility to protect placed prevention and assistance before intervention. It left Security Council asymmetries intact and settled neither the control of coercive mandates nor the responsibility of protectors. Libya and Gaza reveal inverse failures. In Libya, the implementation of collective authorization blurred the boundary between civilian protection and altering the military balance, without an adequate post-war political framework. In Gaza, dense legal regulation long contrasted with enforcement filtered through veto power, alliances, and asymmetries of status, capacity, and control. In both cases, universal norms remain credible only if states, coalitions, and external supporters are subjected to a common requirement of justification, control, and accountability.

Keywords: Peace, Human rights, Sovereignty, Responsibility to protect, Security Council, Libya, Gaza, International humanitarian law