The Responsibility to Protect: Focus on the Responsibility to Prevent and the role of Regional and Civil Society Organizations

In 2009, the UN secretary General Ban Ki-Moon presented a report that outlines a three pillars strategy for the implementation of the R2P, in which "the value of prevention" is stressed as "a key ingredient for a successful strategy for the R2P" (Stammes, 2010, p.7). The importance of the preventive side of R2P was also emphasized by UN member states during the July 2009 General Assembly debate on the topic (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect , 2009) which stipulated that the priority accorded to the prevention is due to the fact it is cheaper than reaction and rebuilding, it is morally superior in that it saves more lives and As Alex Bellamy points out, it may be motivated by a wish to move R2P away from and "interveners" charter (Alex J. Bellamy, 2009, p. 98). The ICRtoP (2013, pp.27-28) has tried to give some examples of cases in which the responsibility to protect has deal with some crisis situations. Among those cases, some have shown an important role played by prevention mechanisms, emphasizing then the importance for the international community to implement the responsibility to prevent for an effective protection of the populations.

Mediation is an essential preventive tool in the theory and practice of conflict resolution. It is a non-coercive instrument which has been used in Kenya to prevent mass atrocities. The possibility of mediation being used in an atrocity setting gained traction after 2007-2008 Post election in Kenya where an African Union led mediation process helped facilitate a political solution to the crisis and end the widespread violence. The success of mediation in Kenya was due to the unanimous support of the International Community, which took the form of concerted pressure on the parties, as stated by Welsh & Sharma (2009, p.8). The formal mediation was accompanied by informal coercive measures and pressures on the parties. "Kenya revealed how non-coercive tools, such as mediation, can halt atrocities when employed early, with sufficient resources and international support" ICRtoP (Crisis in Kenya, 2011, p.5).

Malian case is an example illustrating that the responsibility to protect and mainly prevention could actually work, because the international community acted earlier, by the means of reconciliation. Dialogue, reconciliation and mediation are important to prevent the commission of mass atrocities. It is both normatively and politically desirable to act to prevent mass atrocity crimes from being committed rather than to react after they are really undergoing. The European Union and the United Nations have had an important influence in the election in Mali in July 2013, avoiding then the commission of mass atrocities due the elections’ outcome.

The case of Guinea shows a commitment to prevent future mass atrocities and somehow the success of the international community. The international community responded rapidly to the crisis by increasing the pressure on the junta with a variety of tools including condemnation, mediation, arms embargoes, sanctions and threats of coercive measures as emphasized by the ICRtoP (crisis in Guinea, 2011, p.2). The international community is committed to preventing and halting mass atrocities to ensure the protection of populations from these crimes. International condemnation and economic pressure effectively halted violations of human rights and mediation ensured a political solution to the crisis. The leaders of Guinea, regional and international actors play a significant role in supporting the unity government politically and economically until the presidential election. This indirect measure is necessary for the prevention of the resurgence of the crimes. That is why the ICRtoP (crisis in Guinea, 2011, p.2) highlighted the necessity of reforms in the security sector, the restoration of constitutional order and co-operation with the ICC that might lead to an effective prevention of mass atrocities. However, what is sure is that the prevention mechanisms do not always work. However, it can be assessed that they face some challenges in their actions, because their policies are not coordinated to the policies of regional organizations and some private groups closed to the national contexts. For this reason, there is the need for the co-ordination of their preventive policies, and common guidelines at the international level, which should be inserted in national institutions.