FAKED RESPECTABILITY

R2P: FAKED RESPECTABILITY

Written by Simone Santarelli

The idea of state sovereignty is an historical constant concerned international relations field of studies. When recognized firstly importance at the state sovereignty, a logical consequence became a deed of anarchic system1 of the international policy2, pure hobbesian style: “ […]Even if there had never been any time at which individual men were in a state of war one against another, this is how kings, and persons of sovereign authority relate to one another at all times. Because of their independence from one another, they are in continual mutual jealousies. Like gladiators, with their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another, sovereigns have forts, garrisons, and guns on the frontiers of their kingdoms, and permanent spies on their neighbours—this is a posture of war, as much as the gladiators’ is”.3 A sort of supreme power explaining by the expression “superiorem non recognoscens”. That anarchic system cannot assume a cooperation among nations, extremely busied to improve own security system due to the lack of mutual trust: “dilemma della sicurezza viene semplicemente spiegato come una situazione in cui le azioni degli Stati, adottate per garantire la propria sicurezza, tendono a minacciare la sicurezza di altri Stati”4. It is an extremely pessimistic point of view aligned with the C. Schmitt’s realistic policy; according to him, human beings are dangerous and the most fundamental policy’s feature is hostility.

5

Considering we are

speaking about a system, would be important consider the interactions which depict it alive

1

Anarchic system is an international relations condition that concerned total lack of cooperation among nations up to egoism. It is consequence of extreme national individualism namely Hobbes’s mind “bellum omnium contra omnes”. 2 G.J. Ikenberry e V.E. Parsi, Manuale di relazioni internazionali, anno 2006, Editore Laterza, pp.40-42. 3 T. Hobbes, Il Leviatano, Editori Riuniti, anno 1982, p.75. 4 Goldstein e Pevehouse, International relations, anno 2006, settima edizione, editore Pearson Longman London, p.74. 5 C. Schmitt, Il nomos della terra, Editore Adelphi, anno 1998, pp. 82-83.

and continually streaming. Interactions realized within cooperation that in the past was moved by individualistic and egoistic goals and later, in the most recent history, realized through principles beyond sovereignty. Globalization, like a modern phenomenon, seems delegitimize sovereignty. After established goals of peacekeeping and democracy diffusion, western world has justified own intervention against global crisis. In fact, the historical operations, for instance in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda symbolize some paradigmatic examples of an exasperated interventionism: “The international community in the last decade repeatedly made a mess of handling the many demands that were made for "humanitarian intervention": coercive action against a state to protect people within its borders from suffering grave harm. There were no agreed rules for handling cases such as Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo at the start of the 1990s, and there remain none today. Disagreement continues about whether there is a right of intervention, how and when it should be exercised and under whose authority”6.

6

G.Evans and M. Sahoun, Revisiting humanitarian intervention, art. from Foreign Affairs, published by the Council of Foreign Relations, Novembre/Dicembre, anno 2002. Online: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58437/garethevans-and-mohamed-sahnoun/the-responsibility-to-protect