I've got an issue for discussion:
The UN's security council likely relied on the responsibility to protect protocol, which was implemented largely in response to the atrocities which occurred in Rwanda, in order to carry out military intervention in Libya. The Libyan uprising was a whisker short of a civil war and under the UN's old paradigm would have been beyond the organisation's jurisdiction as state sovereignty was more heavily protected and intervening in domestic matters was all but unheard of. Whilst the principle of responsibility to protect is generaly praised as a step forward for the UN, the protocol does not allow intervention unless the most atrocious crimes against humanity are being commuted- for example genocide or war crimes. The recent attacks on protesters in Yemen or Tunisia, for example, would likely not fall under the code despite the heinous nature of the acts. Should the RtoP be extended to allow forces to protect civilians from the actions of ruling parties such as occured in Yemen recently, or would this constitute too great an interference with state sovereignty? Discuss.