When is intervention justified under the PoC framework?

Intervention under the Protection of Civilians (PoC) framework is justified primarily when there is an evident imminent threat of mass atrocities. This aligns with the fundamental principles of the PoC mandate, which emphasizes the responsibility to protect populations from severe human rights violations, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

The rationale for this justification lies in the necessity to act proactively to prevent large-scale harm to civilians. Recognizing an imminent threat signals that decisive measures need to be taken to avert impending crises, thereby safeguarding the rights and lives of vulnerable populations. It reflects a moral and legal obligation within the international community to respond to egregious acts that could lead to mass suffering.

In contrast, other scenarios presented are not sufficient to justify intervention. A minor threat to civilians may not meet the criteria for action under the PoC framework, as it is generally reserved for more serious matters requiring urgent intervention. Meanwhile, waiting for significant violence to occur diminishes the potential effectiveness of protective measures, as intervention would then react rather than prevent, allowing further atrocities to transpire. Lastly, relying solely on the approval of local governments can be problematic, especially in situations where local authorities may be complicit in the violence or incapable of providing adequate protection