R2P in Iraq

The case is clear: Summary executions, the persecution of religious groups that do not adhere to the radical rules established by "Islamic State" extremists, slavery and sexual violence. The list of atrocities committed by IS in Iraq is so long and so well documented that the United Nations' human rights chief concluded last month that they could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What's also clear is that what is happening in Iraq falls under the United Nation's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) scenario. The R2P principle has three pillars. The first states that governments must protect their citizens. The second says the international community has a responsibility to assist a government at its request to help protect its citizens. The third is to provide protection of citizens when a government fails do so and has not asked for help.

Straightforward case

"We are clearly in a pillar two area where the government of Iraq is requesting help from outside forces to go after IS," Michael Doyle, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, now professor of US foreign policy and law at Columbia University told DW. "So it's a pretty straightforward case in my opinion."

The argument for R2P in Iraq is certainly much easier made than in Libya where in 2011 a NATO-led intervention mandated by a UN resolution that specifically referred to R2P, protected Libyan civilians from the onslaught of the [Moammar] Gadhafi regime that rejected any outside interference.

Given this legal backing by international law and the fact that the Obama administration, especially its current UN ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Advisor Susan Rice were erstwhile strong proponents of R2P, it's curious to see them now remain mum on the issue.

So why then has the Obama administration not invoked that principle in Iraq?

Because it does not have to, would be the simple answer.

No UN resolution needed

If Iraq exercises its responsibility to protect its citizens by inviting the United States and others to assist it in pushing back IS and thus protecting its population - "that does not require a UN Security Council resolution," David Scheffer, the first US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, now director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University in Chicago, told DW.

Since it does not even need a UN vote, it should arguably be even easier for the Obama administration to invoke the R2P concept as the international law basis for its operation against IS in Iraq. Especially since the activities of the US and the coalition it is trying to form clearly "fits the circumstances of R2P," as Doyle argues.

Still, just bringing up R2P even without the necessity of a vote could cause some bad blood in the Security Council, particularly with the strongest critic of an alleged overreach of R2P in Libya - Moscow.

Residual hangover

"I would not be surprised if there was still some residual hangover from the Libya intervention that could impede efforts today to try and use R2P as a justification for intervention in Iraq against IS," said Christopher Chivvis, a senior political scientist with the US think tank Rand Corporation.

"I think the reason governments don't put the specific label on it is that it can trigger a legal argument to whether it fits strictly within the four corners of that term," said Scheffer.

What's more the political climate in the US is not conducive to a renewed engagement in Iraq, especially for humanitarian reasons as specified by R2P.

"President Obama made it a key part of his foreign policy to end the war in Iraq and so for Democrats engagement in Iraq is politically problematic," said Doyle.

"It's easier in the case of IS to make the national security argument for intervention than it was in the case of Libya," said Chivvis. "With IS there is unquestionably a humanitarian element, but there is also very clearly a national security element, so I think there has been a tendency unsurprisingly to try to build the argument first on the national security element and put the humanitarian element in a sort of secondary position."

Show support for R2P

While the experts give Obama credit for finally standing up to the threat of IS and building an international coalition to counter it - even without the legal need to invoke R2P, Scheffer and Doyle nevertheless would like Barack Obama to show that his administration is still behind the concept.

"I think that would help build support for what may be required to defeat IS," said Scheffer.

"I am a proponent of R2P and I would prefer that the administration would announce that the actions that they are taking in Iraq are fully concordant with and in support of the principle of R2P," said Doyle.