Human security is the cornerstone of R2P doctrine. Its Legalization in the international legal system is still far from happening and, if so, it would produce significant political consequences. Yet, looking at the EU strategy in the 2011 Libyan War and in the 2013-2014 political unrest and revolution in Ukraine, one should start asking whether a single and unitary concept of human security actually exists among the global political actors and/or whether the EU is really promoting human security worldwide or, rather, a different concept. We contend that, for the time being, there are two different interpretations of the apparently same concept of human security: the first envisaged by the ICISS in its 2001 Report on R2P; the second envisaged and applied by the EU in the Libyan and Ukrainian cases. Even if scope and purposes of R2P doctrine and human security notion are clear, there is seemingly a “grey zone” where human security and western-supported “right” to a western-style form of democratic governance apparently overlap and leave some room for policy-oriented strategies and interpretations aimed at changing international rules and policies on the legitimacy of forms of government and the legality of military interventions. In recent years, the EU is deeply delving this “grey zone” and trying to link its own peculiar interpretation of human security to the “right” to democratic governance in order to support and legalize the “democratic intervention” in lieu of the “humanitarian intervention”. The consequence is the creation of an overall legal and political framework that has nothing to do with R2P doctrine and human security as envisaged by the ICISS Report in which “democratic intervention” stands for “R2P”, “democratic governance” for “human security”, and “European way of life” for “the right of people to freely decide their own political, economic and cultural form of development”. The apparently same notion of human security is applied by the EU pursuant to the doctrine of democratization (and the right to democratic governance) and not to the doctrine of R2P. Legalizing the European vision of human security would actually allow for even forcible democratization of international relations with substantial and epochal changes for international rules and policies. In Libyan and Ukrainian crises, the EU played an active role since the very beginning of the domestic crises in order to manage their development towards the EU’s final goal, that is to say the change of former Governments and their replacement with pro-EU and western-style Governments. In both cases, the EU achieved its objective. In both cases, however, those who had to be protected paid and are still paying a very high price in terms of human lives, violence and widespread instability inside and outside their own States. Whatever may be its interpretation, human security in Libya and Ukraine is today lower (Ukraine) or absent at all (Libya) than it was before the European democratic interventions for peace and prosperity would take place.
The EU Strategy for Democracy in Libya and Ukraine: Legalizing Human Security or, Rather, Promoting the "European Way of Life" in the Wider World?
BARGIACCHI, PAOLO
2015-01-01
Abstract
Human security is the cornerstone of R2P doctrine. Its Legalization in the international legal system is still far from happening and, if so, it would produce significant political consequences. Yet, looking at the EU strategy in the 2011 Libyan War and in the 2013-2014 political unrest and revolution in Ukraine, one should start asking whether a single and unitary concept of human security actually exists among the global political actors and/or whether the EU is really promoting human security worldwide or, rather, a different concept. We contend that, for the time being, there are two different interpretations of the apparently same concept of human security: the first envisaged by the ICISS in its 2001 Report on R2P; the second envisaged and applied by the EU in the Libyan and Ukrainian cases. Even if scope and purposes of R2P doctrine and human security notion are clear, there is seemingly a “grey zone” where human security and western-supported “right” to a western-style form of democratic governance apparently overlap and leave some room for policy-oriented strategies and interpretations aimed at changing international rules and policies on the legitimacy of forms of government and the legality of military interventions. In recent years, the EU is deeply delving this “grey zone” and trying to link its own peculiar interpretation of human security to the “right” to democratic governance in order to support and legalize the “democratic intervention” in lieu of the “humanitarian intervention”. The consequence is the creation of an overall legal and political framework that has nothing to do with R2P doctrine and human security as envisaged by the ICISS Report in which “democratic intervention” stands for “R2P”, “democratic governance” for “human security”, and “European way of life” for “the right of people to freely decide their own political, economic and cultural form of development”. The apparently same notion of human security is applied by the EU pursuant to the doctrine of democratization (and the right to democratic governance) and not to the doctrine of R2P. Legalizing the European vision of human security would actually allow for even forcible democratization of international relations with substantial and epochal changes for international rules and policies. In Libyan and Ukrainian crises, the EU played an active role since the very beginning of the domestic crises in order to manage their development towards the EU’s final goal, that is to say the change of former Governments and their replacement with pro-EU and western-style Governments. In both cases, the EU achieved its objective. In both cases, however, those who had to be protected paid and are still paying a very high price in terms of human lives, violence and widespread instability inside and outside their own States. Whatever may be its interpretation, human security in Libya and Ukraine is today lower (Ukraine) or absent at all (Libya) than it was before the European democratic interventions for peace and prosperity would take place.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
