The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was created in the hope of overcoming the barrier that state sovereignty, as a principle, had become to actions of humanitarian intervention. It was imagined that as mass atrocity crimes were coming to the attention of the international community, that, on the whole, they were willing, able and eager to intervene in order to stop the violence in question. Holding them back was sovereignty as both a legal and normative barrier. This was always a bad explanation for the pervasive lack of humanitarian intervention; accordingly R2P, as a bad solution, has failed almost entirely. The problem is, and always has been, that when faced with mass atrocity crimes, the international community is plagued by a near-permanent lack of political will to action.

Interwencja humanitarna jako działania podmiotów międzynarodowych wobec państw to akt, wobec którego idea suwerenności państw i wymogi powszechnie obowiązujących praw człowieka wchodzą w niejednoznaczne relacje. W artykule przedstawiono analizę idei suwerenności w kontekście interwencji humanitarnej i praw człowieka jako jej moralnego uzasadnienia. Okazuje się, że analiza tych relacji przynosi możliwość przedefiniowania pojęcia suwerenności i praw człowieka. Ukazane zostaje ponowne określenie ról tych idei, które mogą być przeprowadzone w oparciu o analizy tych związków.

Humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are currently limited and encumbered by a pervasive absence of a political will. In states’ calculations, political considerations are constantly winning-out over the moral considerations of saving at-risk segments of our planet. While institutional and legal reforms undoubtedly play a role in addressing this challenge, such reforms and structures have existed for generations now, and have largely failed to bridge this gap from ‘moral necessity to political action’. What has been lacking is a moral understanding of humanitarian crises that is capable of reliably motivating the international community to undertake remedying actions, rather than merely expressions of concern. Such a moral foundation is achievable through institutional cosmopolitanism, an understanding of humanitarian intervention as satisfactions of our negative duties, and specifically the work of Thomas Pogge.

Subject, object, state or process? Reflections on the typology of security

The purpose of this article is to analyse security in three dimensions: subjective, objective and processual, taking into account rich domestic and foreign literature. The use of literature study allows not only to review the current state of research, but it also has ordering, or systematizing character within domain of security studies. It is also a pretext for employing theoretical perspective on each of the above-mentioned aspects of security inspired largely by works of Ken Booth, Barry Buzan, Hedley Bull, John Vincent and Nicholas Wheeler.