A/HRC/33/40 they could not attain in an open political process”,20 and “if there ever was a one-sided dispute resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it.”21 III. From the responsibility to protect to the responsibility to act 13. The notion of the responsibility to protect 22 was formulated at the 2005 World Summit. Theoretically it has the potential, depending how it is interpreted and applied, to reaffirm the duty of each State to protect the population under its jurisdiction from internal and external dangers by the adoption of preventive and curative policies to counteract structural violence caused by State and non-State actors. On the other hand, a narrow interpretation of the responsibility to protect as a pretext to allow foreign intervention in the internal affairs of States poses dangers signalled at the General Assembly debate in July 2009, which revealed the potential geopolitical misuse of the responsibility to protect as a means to circumvent the jus cogens prohibition of the use of force stipulated in Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations. While the responsibility to protect could advance human rights, its slogan-like mediatization and the dangers of arbitrary and selective application would erode the Charter.23 14. The Independent Expert proposes a reformulation of the doctrine to lift it out of the narrow focus on protecting populations from war crimes and genocide to a broader duty to protect populations from war, military interventions and structural violence. The international community has an interest in reaffirming a duty to protect and actively advance civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. Governments, parliaments and courts have a responsibility to act in the public interest for economic stability, social development, environmental sustainability, food security, improvement of health and labour standards, through taxation, precautionary and preventive measures against the dangers of genetically modified organisms,24 fracking,25 open-pit mining, pesticides, air and water pollution, corruption, monopolies and asymmetrical trade. Those generic obligations of governance are the raison d’être of organized society. Rights holders of the responsibility to act are individuals and peoples, including indigenous peoples. Duty bearers are Governments, parliaments and courts. 15. Never must the courts become instruments of injustice. Never should they lend themselves to the execution of manifestly unjust investor-State dispute settlement awards. Courts should exercise their constitutional and implied powers to deny implementation in cases of abuse of rights, unjust enrichment or manifestly ill-founded awards, such as when arbitrators invent outrageously extensive interpretations. 16. The human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, numerous regional human rights treaties like the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), the European Social Charter, the American Convention on Human Rights and the 20 21 22 23 24 25 GE.16-11938 Joseph Stiglitz, “Developing countries are right to resist restrictive trade agreements”, The Guardian, 8 November 2013. Joseph Stiglitz, “The secret corporate takeover of trade agreements”, The Guardian, 13 May 2015. www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml; A/63/677. www.un.org/press/en/2009/ga10850.doc.htm. www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947. www.alternet.org/environment/8-dangerous-side-effects-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hearabout. 5