Power relations and the doctrine of The Responsibility to Protect; A case study of The Hamas-Israel 2023 Conflict

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Shiraz University

Abstract

The doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emerged in response to the weaknesses of international law in addressing human security concerns. It is rooted in the concepts of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention." The post-Cold War era saw a shift in international relations, with the rise of non-state actors, international institutions, and intra-state conflicts. This context led to debates surrounding humanitarian intervention, specifically the use of force by one state against another to protect civilians. The concept of "right to intervene" evolved into "responsibility to protect," and the traditional view of sovereignty as control transformed into sovereignty as responsibility. These developments culminated in the adoption of the R2P doctrine between 2000 and 2005.
Despite ongoing discussions about its effectiveness and legitimacy, the R2P doctrine offers a potential legal framework for international responses to civilian suffering. This study examines the 2023 conflict between Hamas and Israel through the lens of R2P. Although the doctrine has an explicit legal basis, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not invoke it in support of the Gazan population. This research investigates why the UNSC failed to utilize R2P in the recent Gaza crisis.
Main research question: Why was the UNSC unable to resort to the R2P doctrine in the recent Gaza crisis? Why did the UN fail to take any effective action based on R2P to support the people of Gaza?
Secondary research question: Does the R2P doctrine provide a sufficient legal basis for an international response (by the UNSC) to support civilians in the Gaza Strip?
The study hypothesizes that power relations and the mechanisms governing the international system hindered the UNSC's use of R2P in the case of Gaza.
The research suggests that the hierarchical power structure within the UN, particularly the veto power, played a significant role. The United States' instrumental use of the UN to maximize its power, interventions, and regional interests in the Middle East, coupled with its strong support for Israel, rendered the R2P doctrine ineffective in the Gaza crisis.
Theoretical Framework
This research employs aggressive realism theory and adopts a descriptive-explanatory approach. The study argues that despite the legal basis for applying R2P to support the Gazan population following the 2023 conflict, the question remained: which state was responsible for protecting Gazan civilians, and why did they fail to uphold this responsibility? The research then examines the relevance of the R2P doctrine in the context of the UN's role.
Findings
The research confirms the hypothesis that power relations and the mechanisms governing the international system impeded the UNSC's use of R2P for the residents of Gaza. The findings suggest that the hierarchical power structure within the UN, particularly the veto power, along with the United States' instrumental use of the UN and its unwavering support for Israel, contributed to the ineffectiveness of the R2P doctrine in the recent Gaza crisis.
The United States, seeking to maximize its power and ensure its own security in the aftermath of the 2023 Hamas-Israel conflict, resorted to "backpassing" responsibility to its regional partner, Israel. This strategy aimed to maintain control over the crisis and prevent other major powers and regional actors from gaining influence.
The strategic alliance between the US and Israel, along with the US's commitment to supporting Israel as its regional partner within the Middle East's "backpassing" system, aimed to maximize US power against competitors and uphold the existing international order and power structure within international organizations like the UN. These factors ultimately led the UN Security Council to disregard and fail to implement the R2P doctrine in support of the Gazan people, despite the clear legal basis for its application. As long as current conditions persist and power relations continue to overshadow the R2P doctrine, we risk witnessing the further marginalization of this doctrine on the altar of US patronage of Israel.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Ajili, H., and Rezaei, N. (2018). Defensive and Offensive Realism (A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Persian Gulf Events, National Security Quarterly, 8 (27), 165-198 [In Persian].
Asadi, A. (2010). Realism and Competing Approaches to Foreign Policy, A Quarterly Journal of Strategy, 56, 223-252 [In Persian].
Abedini Kashkooeiyeh, H., Masoudniya, H., and Goodarzi, M. (2022). America's Foreign Policy towards Iran in the Era of Obama and Trump (based on the Theory of Mearsheimer's Offensive Realism and Waltz's Defensive Realism), Specialized Scientific Quarterly of Iranian Political Research, 9 (34), 7-23 [In Persian].
Abdkhodaei, M and Rahiminezhad, M. (2018). America's 40-year strategies against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Revolution Studies Quarterly, 15 (55), 165-184 [In Persian].
Aliakbari Maranto, M. (2020). Investigating the legal performance of the Security Council in the imposed war: the predominance of the interests of great powers over international law, Scientific Quarterly Journal of Sacred Defense Studies, 6 (1), 141-161 [In Persian].
Babaei Mehr, A., and Ebrahimi Erami, K. (2014). The role of the Security Council in the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, International Studies Quarterly, No. 42, 147-168 [In Persian].
Boleslaw Boczek, R. (1996). The International Law Dictionary, Tehran: Ganj Danesh Library Publications [In Persian].
Buzan, B., and Waver, O. (2021). Regions and Powers (The Structure of International Security), Tehran: Research School of Strategic Studies [In Persian].
Buzan, B., Waever, O. (2021). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Translator Rahman Ghahramanpour, Third Edition, Institute for Strategic Studies. [In Persian].
Beckley, M. (2018). Unrivaled: why America will remain the world’s sole superpower, Cornell University Press.
Bordner, Bruce (1997). Rethinking Neorealist Theory: Order within Anarchy, (28/12/2023) at: http://brucebordner.com.
Dadandish, P. (2012). The Events of Libya and the Doctrine of the Responsibility of Protection, Strategy Quarterly, 21(6), 169-192 [In Persian].
Ebrahimi, N. (2010). United States of America's Semantic-Strategic Ties and Commitments with Israel, Regional Studies Quarterly (Israel Studies - American Studies), 3 (11), 25-47 [In Persian].
Evans, G., et al (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,(28/11/2023) at: http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf.
Evans, G. (2008). The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All, Washington D.C, Brooking Institution Press.
Fathi, F. (2020). Investigating and Analyzing the Requirements of Aggressive Realism with a Comparative View of Neorealism Theory, Ghanoonyar, 4 (15), 823-854 [In Persian].
Ghafoori, M. (2004). International Organizations, Tehran: Samt [In Persian].
Ghavam, A. (2004). Principles of Foreign Policy and International Politics, Tehran: Samt [In Persian].
Ghaderi, S., and Ghorbanniya, N. (2013). The Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect and trying to deal with Human Disasters, Foreign Relations Quarterly, 5 (1), 199-234[In Persian].
Huntington Samuel, P. (1999). The Lonely Superpower, Foreign Affairs, Vol 2, pp.35-49.
Haass, R. (2008). The Age of Non-polarity: What will - Follow U.S. Dominance, Foreign Affairs. 87(3).
Holsti, Jaakko, K. (1988). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Official website of the United States Government (2023). U-S Relations with Israel, (24/12/2023) at: Https://www.state.gov/u-s-/relations-with-israel-2.
Jafarinezhad, M., and Modabadi, F. (2014). The Impact of Iran's Nuclear Program on the Regional Security System of the Middle East (Persian Gulf) with an Emphasis on the Theory of Offensive Realism, International Political Research Quarterly, No. 20, 207-227 [In Persian].
Jafari, A. (2012). Nuclear-Weapon Cooperation and Strategic Alliance between America and Israel, Islamic World Studies Quarterly, No. 1, 1-16 [In Persian].
Jafari, A. (2000). The New Role of the United States of America in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Studies Quarterly, 7 (2), 179-224 [In Persian].
Jafari, A. (2007). The Theory of Neorealism and the Strategic Alliance between America and Israel, Law and Political Science Quarterly, 2 (6), 105-135 [In Persian].
Jafari, A., and Dadpanah, M. (2012). The States of America opposition of the United to Iran's nuclear knowledge and Israel's security, political and international research Quarterly, 4 (10), 90-109 [In Persian].
Libert, R. (1998). American-Israeli Relations after 50 years, Regional Studies Quarterly (Israel Studies - American Studies),2 (2), 45-56 [In Persian].
Jafari, A. (2012). Explaining the Factors and Goals of the Strategic Alliance between America and Israel in the Middle East Region, Geopolitics Quarterly, 8 (2), 153-191 [In Persian].
Krauthammer, C. (2002/03). The Unipolar Moment Revisited, The National Interest,70 (1),5- 17.
Kooliyaei, H., and Ravanbad, A., and Haghighi, A. (2023). Explaining the Change in the Structure of the International System against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Quarterly Journal of Political and International Research, 14 (55), 103-121[In Persian].
Layne, C. (2012). This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana, International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 203–213.
Miri Lavasani, S. (2010). Examining the Genocide in Gaza by Looking at International Human Rights Documents, at Bigdeli, S. (2010). Legal aspects of Israel's war against Gaza, Tehran: Publications of Imam Sadiq University [In Persian].
Mohammadiyan, H. (2005). The Consequences of America’s Hegemony and Unilateralism in the Discussion of Increasing the Members of the UN Security Council, Strategy Quarterly, 13 (4), 67-77 [In Persian].
Momtaz, D. (2016). La controverse sur le statut de la Palestine, Koninklijke Brill NV, 102-115.
Mearsheimer, J. (2009). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Gholam Ali Ghegenizadeh, Tehran: Center for Political and International Studies [In Persian].
Mearsheimer, J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order, International Security, 43(4).
Mearsheimer, J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War, International Security, 15(1), 5–56.
Naeimi, A., and Mirkooshesh, A., and Mohammadzadeh, A. (2019). Scenario planning of the Future International Order in the years leading to 2030 AD, Political Studies Quarterly, 12 (45), 241-262 [In Persian].
Paris, R. (2001). Human Security Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), (fall), 87-102.
Pijovic, N. (2012). The Relative Gains Theorem and the Stalling United Nations Security Council Membership Reform, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 11(4), 32-41.
Robert J. L. (1998). The U.S- Israeli Relations After 50 years, Israel Affairs, 5(1), 26-19.
Ramazani Ghavamabadi, M. (2016). From Recognizing the Palestinian State to Membership in the International Criminal Court, Research Government Quarterly, 2 (7), 1-39 [In Persian].
Rakabiyan, R., and Dalavar, H. (2022). The Current State of the International Order: Future Trends and its Consequences for the Islamic Republic of Iran, International Studies Quarterly, 19 (1), 247-269 [In Persian].
Sokolsky Joel, J. (1997). The Americanization of Peacekeeping: Implications for Canada Martello Papers, 17, Kingston: Centre for International Relations, Queens University.
Salmon, J. (2012). La qualité d’Etat de la Palestine, RBDI, Tome 1, 13-40.
Sazmand, B. (2008). Studying International Organizations from a Theoretical Perspective, Politics Quarterly, 38 (2), 119-139 [In Persian].
Sajjadpoor, M., and Aghamohammadi, Z. (2015). The Security Council, Great Powers and United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Conceptual Frameworks and Operational Functions, Afagh Security Quarterly, 8 (28), 161-188 [In Persian].
Sajjadpoor, M. (2013). Great Powers and International Organizations; The Nature of post-Cold War transformation, International Organizations Quarterly, 1 (2), 7-23 [In Persian].
Tunsjø, Ø. (2018). The Return of Bipolarity in World Politics, Columbia University Press.
Varisco, A. E. (2013). Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace? e-International Relations.
Wallsh, D. (2013). Syrian Alliance Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era: The Impact of Unipolarity, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 37(2).
Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The Stability of a Unipolar World, International Security,1 (24), 5-41.
Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World, New York: Norton.
Zakeriyan, M. (2000). International Humanitarian Law: US and Israel Approaches, Regional Studies Quarterly (Israel Studies - American Studies), 5 (2), 31-44 [In Persian].
Zamani, G., and Noori, V. (2012). Gaza crisis in the scales of the Doctrine of the Responsibility of Protect, Foreign Relations Quarterly, 4 (3), 287-319 [In Persian].

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics