The Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism

More than a decade after the world did nothing to halt genocide in Rwanda, and in the shadow of ongoing atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, the international community recently made a new commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.The United Nations 2005 World Summit brought together representatives from more than 170 countries, including the United States.While largely reiterating previous international development and security goals, the Summit culminated with an agreement that the international community, acting through the United Nations, bears a responsibility to help protect populations from genocide and other atrocities when their own governments fail to do so.The agreement further announced a willingness to take "collective action" through the Security Council to protect populations if peaceful means prove inadequate.'The motivating force behind the agreement is the United Nations' past inaction in the face of grave atrocities, including genocide.At the conclusion of the World Summit, Secretary General Kofi Annan told the world's leaders: "You will be pledged to act if another Rwanda looms." 2 However, by describing the responsibility to protect in terms of U.N. action, the World Summit failed to address a critical issue: What can and should be done by individual states if the United Nations fails to fulfill its pledge?The answer to this question will inform the scope of permissible unilateral action, with implications for future humanitarian interventions and military actions.1.