@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00005883,
 author = {山形, 英郎 and Yamagata, Hideo},
 journal = {国際開発研究フォーラム, Forum of International Development Studies},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {The new idea of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) was advanced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001. It was innovated by the Commission to avoid the word of "humanitarian intervention" and put the debate on the intervention forward. It has obtained the popularity among scholars and diplomats since it was incorporated in 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. R2P presupposes that sovereignty has dual responsibility, internally to protect citizens within the territory of a state and externally to be accountable for the commission and omission of the state. If the state is unwilling or unable to avert the large scale loss of human lives and the ethnic cleansing, the international community takes the residual responsibility to intervene into that state for the humanitarian purposes. However, R2P cannot always ensure the authorization of the Security Council, because of the exercise of the veto power by one of the permanent members. In the practice of the Council, the large scale of human lives and the ethinic cleansing do not always constitute "the threat to the peace" as a requirement for the action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The General Assembly can act to recommend collective measures under the Uniting for Peace resolution in a case where the Security Council is paralyzed by a veto. However the resolution cannot be used by the General Assembly to take military measures, because collective measures involving use of armed force are only available when the existence of the breach of the peace or act of aggression is determined. Therefore R2P does not legalize the humanitarian intervention which is otherwise illegal. R2P is just a play of words.},
 pages = {67--85},
 title = {「人道的干渉」から「住民保護責任」への転換？},
 volume = {34},
 year = {2007}
}