There is a perceived legitimacy deficit in contemporary international society. A symptom of this is the political contestation surrounding the 2011 Libyan crisis and its influence on the 2011–13 Syrian crisis. This involved criticism being levelled at the coalition led by the so-called Permanent-3 for the way they implemented the protection of civilians mandate, as well as for the referral of the Libyan situation to the International Criminal Court. How the P3 respond to these developments will be driven in part by how this ‘legitimacy fault line’ is interpreted. The purpose of this article is to first give an interpretation that is informed by the work of contemporary English School scholars and the political theorists they draw on; and second to provide the context in which specific policy recommendations may guide the response of the P3 states. We argue that because the new legitimacy fault line divides on the procedural question ofwho decides howinternational society should meet its responsibilities rather than substantive disagreements aboutwhatthose responsibilities are (that is, human protection and justice) the challenge to the liberal agenda of the P3 is not radical. However, we also argue that ignoring the procedural concerns of the African and BRICS states is not outcome neutral and could in fact do harm to both the ICC and the wider implementation of R2P. We consider two proposals for procedural reform and examine how the P3 response would impact on their claim to be good international citizens.
The article provides the first substantive analysis of the war on drugs in the Philippines under the Responsibility to Protect. It develops in two stages. First, it argues that the war on drugs constitutes crimes against humanity through an analysis of, i) extrajudicial killings and vigilante justice, ii), dehumanisation, and, iii) the exaggeration of threat. Second, it examines the response of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (p5) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Despite that the US, the UK, and France have expressed public concerns, we show that they prioritise counter-terrorism and trade over the Responsibility to Protect. Meanwhile, China and Russia uphold the view that the war on drugs is a matter of domestic jurisdiction. Regarding ASEAN, we draw on 26 semi-structured elite interviews conducted in South East Asia (2016-2018) to evidence that the elites prioritise state sovereignty and non-interference. The outcome is that there is a significant protection deficit as the government of the Philippines, the p5, and ASEAN are failing to protect those targeted in the war on drugs. We hope that the article will act as a catalyst for a much needed conversation on the international community's political, legal, and moral responsibilities regarding mass violence against drug users in international relations.
As we approach the 10th anniversary of the World Summit Outcome now is the time to pause and ask the question what do scholars expect from the Responsibility to Protect? This article draws on non-Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) research into expectations to argue that in the aftermath of the intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria scholars have to manage RtoP expectations. In so doing, it introduces four types of expectations into the RtoP discourse: 'expectation gaps', 'expectation vacuums', 'expectation clouding', and 'inherited expectations' -the latter of which is this author's own contribution to the discourse. To illustrate the utility of the expectations approach, the article focuses on the debate over inconsistency in order to highlight the role of expectation gaps and inherited expectations.Going forward, it calls for further research into RtoP expectation management to be conducted and identifies key debates which need to be addressed. Ultimately, it advances an understanding of the RtoP that is inherently more sensitive to its limitations and possibilities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.