Source: United Nations MIL OSI
As the General Assembly marked the twentieth anniversary of the responsibility to protect, the UN Chief emphasized that the principle remains a moral imperative amid growing global turmoil, escalating identity-based violence, widespread breaches of international law and deepening impunity.
Opening the session, Philémon Yang (Cameroon), President of the General Assembly, recalled that, 20 years ago, at the 2005 World Summit, world leaders affirmed the responsibility of individual States to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Born from the horrors of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, that commitment represented a pledge that “never again would the international community stand silent as innocent lives were destroyed by the gravest crimes”.
Nevertheless, today, two decades later, “we must ask ourselves how we have allowed ourselves to fall short”, he said. From Gaza to Ukraine, from Sudan to Myanmar, there is blatant disregard for human rights, early warnings are ignored and the Security Council is failing to act.
Also acknowledging commendable gains, he noted the establishment of international mechanisms for atrocity prevention. Prevention and protection strategies have been implemented across peacekeeping operations. “We must find ways to deliver on the promise of ‘never again’,” he stressed.
Picking up that thread, UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized that the world is witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts since the end of the Second World War. Further, conflicts are becoming more protracted, complex and interconnected, while emerging threats such as the weaponization of new technologies and the proliferation of advanced weaponry require a constant adaptation to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes and to protect populations.
However, he continued, too often, early warnings go unheeded, and alleged evidence of crimes committed by States and non-State actors is met with denial, indifference, or repression. “Responses are often too little, too late, inconsistent or undermined by double standards,” he said, adding that “civilians are paying the highest price”.
“We must recognize that the responsibility to protect is more than a principle — it is a moral imperative, rooted in our shared humanity and the UN Charter,” he emphasized, spotlighting the seventeenth report of the Secretary-General on the responsibility to protect.
The report highlights efforts achieved through national prevention mechanisms or under regional leadership, demonstrating that early diplomacy, early warning and institutional innovation can be effective in preventing and responding to atrocity crimes. It also underscores the need to mainstream atrocity prevention across the United Nations system — from humanitarian action to peacekeeping to human rights. Additionally, it calls for integrating early warning, supporting national prevention mechanisms and embedding atrocity prevention in the broader agendas of sustaining peace, human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
“No society is immune from the risk of atrocity crimes,” he asserted, emphasizing that “prevention must begin at home — with leadership that protects rights, embraces diversity and upholds the rule of law”. And it must be supported globally through multilateral cooperation, principled diplomacy, and early and decisive action to effectively protect populations. Two decades on, the responsibility to protect remains both an urgent necessity and an unfulfilled promise. “Let us keep the promise, deepen our commitment, strengthen our cooperation and ensure that atrocity-prevention and protecting populations becomes a permanent and universal practice,” he stated.
In the ensuing debate, numerous Member States emphasized that — amid growing violence against civilians and worsening humanitarian crises — the responsibility to protect must remain central to efforts aimed at promoting peace and security.
Speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends on the Responsibility to Protect, the representative of Morocco expressed concern that, despite unanimous support for ending atrocity crimes, serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law persist. “This growing gap between rhetoric and action is especially concerning given the international community’s improved understanding of risk factors and increased capacity to respond,” he pointed out. He also acknowledged the key role of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect in advancing this principle.
Expressing concern about the increased use of the veto in the Council, the representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, said all Member States — especially those holding veto power — must support both the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, as well as the French-Mexican initiative on refraining from the use of veto in the case of mass atrocities.
“While some advances in military technology can bring increased precision and a reduction of civilian harm,” she said, the recent evolution of warfare, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), may lead to diluted human control and increased brutality in conflict. Further, “when prevention fails, we need to make every effort to ensure that the perpetrators of atrocity crimes are held accountable,” she said, reaffirming support for the International Criminal Court.
Relatedly, Denmark’s delegate, also speaking for Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden, urged the Council “to renew and strengthen its focus on prevention” and acknowledged the efforts of the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as civil society experts. Stressing the importance of the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, she added: “Independent and impartial international courts and tribunals, in particular the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, are central to accountability for the most serious crimes.”
Slovenia’s delegate stressed that the veto power in the Council should not be used in situations where there is a clear threat of mass atrocity crimes, as it hinders effective decision–making and prevents action that would help to protect populations in a timely and effective manner. Her country was among the first to appoint a national Responsibility to Protect Focal Point, she said, highlighting the Ljubljana-Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Other International Crimes. “This is the first major international treaty in the field of international criminal law since the Rome Statute that enables States to cooperate effectively internationally in the investigation and prosecution of international crimes by filling legal gaps in the fields of international legal assistance and extradition,” she pointed out.
The representative of France, speaking also for Mexico, said that while civilians worldwide are victims of large-scale violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, “the Council is too often paralysed by the use of the veto”. He welcomed the mention in the Secretary-General’s report of the French-Mexican initiative on the voluntary regulation of the use of the veto in the Council in cases of mass atrocities. “The veto is not a privilege but a responsibility,” he said, noting that this proposal is already supported by over 100 States and inviting all other States to join this commitment, starting with the Council’s elected and permanent members. He also emphasized the crucial role of national human rights institutions, civil society and the Human Rights Council’s mechanisms as essential tools for early warning, prevention and accountability.
“Now, more than ever, we must continue to promote and defend our collective political commitment to [the] responsibility to protect and its implementation,” said Australia’s delegate, speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand. The world is facing the highest level of conflict since the Second World War, with reported violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen. “We cannot allow impunity,” he asserted, calling for full accountability for atrocity crimes through appropriate national and international investigative and justice mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
However, other delegates voiced concern that the responsibility to protect principle is increasingly being instrumentalized to justify interventions under a humanitarian pretext, or to undermine States’ sovereignty through the application of unilateral coercive measures.
Among them was the representative of Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, who cited the notion as “non-consensual and controversial”. Accordingly, he voiced concern over the principle “selective and politically motivated” application.
Paradoxically, at the same time, the world is witnessing a “resounding failure” to ensure the protection of civilians caught in the armed conflict in Gaza, where the Palestinian people are suffering an increasingly brutal Israeli occupation, which represents a systematic violation of international law and requires urgent action to protect and save civilian lives, in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Poland’s representative emphasized that invoking the responsibility to protect to justify military aggression — such as the Russian Federation’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine — constitutes a deliberate distortion of the principle. In March 2022, the International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling finding that Moscow did not have grounds to attack Ukraine based on claims of genocide, he noted. He also expressed support for the mandates of the Special Advisers on Genocide Prevention and on the Responsibility to Protect.
Other delegates highlighted their countries’ experiences with genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
“The crisis in Myanmar is the heartbreaking case in point,” said that country’s representative, adding that the military junta continues to commit widespread atrocities with impunity, violating the core principles of the responsibility to protect. Noting that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court applied in 2024 for an arrest warrant against Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing, he said a swift decision is vital. He also called for the issuance of the arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing “to save lives and protect the people of Myanmar from the military junta’s further heinous crimes”. The Security Council must act decisively, he asserted, noting that a follow-up to resolution 2669 (2022) should include monitoring and enforcement.
Noting that the application of the responsibility to protect principle “remains uneven”, Burundi’s delegate emphasized that it “cannot be selective on the basis of temporal or material considerations”. Drawing attention to the 1972 genocide committed against the Hutu ethnic group, he said that, during this “massacre of terrible proportions”, which occurred between April and July 1972, hundreds of thousands of Burundians of the Hutu ethnic group were hunted down, arrested, executed without trial and very often buried in mass graves.
“This has a name in international law: genocide,” he said. And while Burundi’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission officially described the events of 1972 as such, identifying over 4,000 potential mass graves and collecting thousands of witness testimonies, “no international body has recognized this crime as such”. Citing this silence as “a form of abandoning innocent victims whose souls need to be put to rest”, he underscored that “the responsibility to protect is not a slogan”, but a “legal, moral and political commitment”.
MIL OSI United Nations News –