R2P was designed to take on the views of those needing support. R2P states that the primary responsibility of protecting its people rests within the state in question. If the state is unable to or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility to protect its people then the international community has a responsibility to intervene.

So once it has been established that a state is unwilling or unable to protect its people, R2P requires that three requirements be fulfilled in order to intervene.

1) Just cause
2) 4 precautionary principles
3) Right to authority

1) Just cause– States that civilians must be in face of harm in 1 OF 2 ways:
-Large scale loss of life (actual or anticipated)
-Ethnic cleansing

2) 4 precautionary principles
1- Right intention: The primary purpose of intervention must be to halt human suffering
2- Last resort: Intervention can be justified only when every non-military option for prevention of the crises has been explored.
3- Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the objective of protecting the people.
4- Reasonable Prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting the suffering that has justified the intervention.

3) Right to authority: There must be a blessing for intervention from the Security Council of the UN. If the Security Council does not approve of intervention there are two alternatives. 1) An emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly to meet under the “United for Peace” procedures or 2) There can be regional or subregional military action.

Now with that being said, I believe that the international community, the UN, and R2P have failed when it comes to the issue of Burma.

There was an obvious need to individuals to be assisted because their government was unable and unwilling to provide the proper support that the citizens were in need of.

Just cause was met, civilians were in the face of harm by a large scale loss of life (actual AND anticipated). There was an estimated 100,000 people dead. I think that would be considered large scale…

Right intention: The purpose of intervention would have been to halt human suffering

Last resort: We tried diplomatic efforts to persuade the military junta to allow foreign aid into the country. It failed for THREE weeks. Imagine how many lives could have been saved!

Reasonable prospects: With a French led invasion with the support of the US the likelihood for success would have been great.

Right to authority. There was never a vote in the Security Council…… This is where the UN failed in another humanitarian intervention.

THE UNITED STATES FAILED, THE UNITED NATIONS FAILED, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FAILED!

Can I sum it up by saying that it doesn’t apply because:
1. It doesn’t fulfil point B. of the ‘justifiable reasons’ you mentioned, therefore (I presume) not fulfilling the full criteria in order to take action;
2. It doesn’t fulfil the ‘precautionary principles’ criteria.

My question is, which take primacy in decision-making about intervention:
the justifiable reasons, or the precautionary principles?
Or is there, say, a matrix (based on the above) upon where decisions can be made (by eg. the UNSC) on whether the situation in Burma entails intervention?

In the meantime, I suppose the best we can hope for is there are still other options, no matter how vague this hope is; since there doesn’t seem to be consensus on whether things have become bad enough to warrant military intervention or not.