Close cousins in protection: the evolution of two norms

Abstract

The Protection of Civilians (PoC) in peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from atrocity crimes are two norms that emerged at the turn of the new millennium with the aim of protecting vulnerable peoples from mass violence and/or systematic and widespread violations of human rights. To date, most scholars have analysed the discourses over the status, strength and robustness of both norms separately. And yet, the distinction between the two has at times been exceptionally fine. In this article, we analyse the constitutive relationship between PoC and R2P, and the impact of discursive and behavioural contestation on their joint evolution within the UN system and state practice over three phases (1999–2005; 2006–10; 2011–18). In so doing, we contribute to the International Relations literature on norms by illuminating ideational interplay in the dynamics of norm evolution and contestation. More specifically, we illustrate how actors may seek to strengthen support for one norm, or dimension of a norm, by contrasting it or linking it with another. Our analysis also reveals that while the two norms of R2P and PoC were initially debated and implemented through different institutional paths and policy frameworks, discursive and behavioural contestation has in more recent years brought them closer together in one important respect. The meaning ascribed to both norms—by representatives of states and institutions such as the United Nations—has become more state-centric, with an emphasis on building and strengthening the capacity of national authorities to protect populations. This meaning contrasts with the more cosmopolitan origins of R2P and PoC, and arguably limits possibilities for the external enforcement of both norms through any form of international authority that stands above or outside sovereign states. This article forms part of the special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs on ‘The dynamics of dissent’, guest-edited by Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken.

Reining in a liberal UN: China, power shifts, and the UN's peace and security pillar

“…As yet, Beijing does not hold senior level posts in the UN Secretariat in the area of peace and security, though this may change. There are some instances of successful attempts to promote its preferences on particular issues, but it has been cautious in its choice of issue area, selecting those—such as peacekeeper safety or peacekeeping capacity building for African states—where there is a well‐spring of support, especially among troop‐contributing countries (Paddon Rhoads & Welsh, 2019). There is some voluntary funding available to support its security‐related preferences but as yet this has only been offered in modest amounts.…”

The political and security dimensions of the humanitarian health response to violent conflict

“…After the failed protective records in Rwanda (in 1994) and Yugoslavia (in 1995), the UN has embraced two general protective frameworks: the Protection of Civilians, primarily as a component of peacekeeping mandates, and the Responsibility to Protect, which holds sovereign states responsible for protecting their citizens and provides procedures for an international response if sovereign states fail to do so. 91 These two frameworks heralded a shift in UN concern from the long-standing focus on the security of sovereign states to that of individuals residing within these states.…”

“…Although a lack of consensus among global powers has constrained the Responsibility to Protect's provisions for the use of force, the framework continues to provide normative support for the protection of civilians and human rights in conflict. 91,92 Protection of Civilians strategies have also had to face new obstacles, as the UN Security Council since 2016 has generally included the protection of civilians within recent peacekeeping man dates but without the requisite resources or capabilities to accomplish this mission. Peacekeepers themselves have also committed sexual assaults and other violations of human rights.…”

Protect and punish: norm linkage and international responses to mass atrocities

“… 5. I understand the protection norm as comprising both the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) and the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict ( PoC ). Paddon Rhoads and Welsh (2019) discuss both as distinct norms, but highlight how they have become merged in political discourse and practice. …”