The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the UN, shows the growing importance of human rights by It is criticized for becoming a justification for intervention on behalf of state interests not related to protection of human rights.
<h3>The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?</h3>
All Heads of State and Government endorsed the duty to safeguard populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. Three equally important pillars support the responsibility to protect (commonly abbreviated as "R2P"): the obligation of each State to protect its citizens (pillar I); the obligation of the international community to support States in protecting their citizens (pillar II); and the obligation of the international community to act when a State is blatantly failing to protect its citizens (pillar III). When the concept was adopted in 2005, it was a solemn commitment with high hopes for a world free of these atrocities.
- There are several circumstances in today's world where populations are at risk of R2P crimes or where such crimes are already occurring. These crises are occurring in a climate of waning internationalism, declining adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, political division in important decision-making bodies like the Security Council, and a degree of defeatism toward advancing ambitious agendas like protection.
- Alarming contempt for core principles of international law has been on display. We are witnessing widespread and egregious attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected individuals, including humanitarian and health-care workers, in many of the armed conflicts that have broken out in recent years.
- The most severe transgressions of international humanitarian and human rights law, which may qualify as atrocity crimes, continue to be committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States, which is a depressing reality given the rise of violent, non-state armed organizations.
- Similarly, governments do not hold those responsible for atrocity crimes accountable for their deeds. In order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, some States parties to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, are not collaborating with the Court or are even considering withdrawing from the Statute.
- The Security Council is becoming less willing to bring issues to the Court, and certain political figures obviously want to avoid being held accountable in court.
Learn more about Protect (R2P) here:
brainly.com/question/16179318
#SPJ4
The second amendment gives people the right to own guns. The third amendment basically states that you can’t force people to house soldiers (more relevant in the older times). So, obviously the amendment we are dealing with here is the second amendment. A city or state is not allowed to ban something that is protected by the amendments, and having and owning a hand gun is protected by the second amendment (with a license). Therefore, the city of Chicago violated the second amendment. Your answer would be A.
Hope this helps :)
