{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013592233009708738, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005177993527508091, 'mean_word_length': 5.184, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Responsibility to Protect

The decision whether, if ever, to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state with military force has become a critical issue of the post Cold War era. In 2000 the Canadian government launched the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which in 2001 published its findings in The Responsibility to Protect. The Commission found broad support for the notion of sovereignty not only as a right, but also a responsibility, the responsibility of a state to provide protection for its people. The primary responsibility for protecting citizens rests with states. But when states are unable or unwilling to provide this protection, or are themselves the perpetrators of atrocities, the Commission argues that the international community has a responsibility temporarily to step in, forcefully if necessary. The Commission resisted the temptation to identify human rights violations falling short of outright killing or ethnic cleansing. This eliminates the possibility of intervening on the basis of systematic oppression of human rights or intervening to remove a military dictatorship. The intention of the report was to provoke debate; to strengthen the role of the United Nations and ensure that such interventions were multilateral and meeting the wider needs of a region and not the interests of major powers. There is an ongoing need to ensure that the Security Council is effective and that resources match the political will. These debates must continue within a UN framework.