Emerging Powers and the Notion of International Responsibility: moral duty or shifting goalpost?

Abstract

The rise of new powers and attendant shifts in the global balance of power have led to calls for UN Security Council reform. Established powers have often responded by linking increased influence in the international system with the assumption of more international responsibility by aspirant powers. Based on ethical and philosophical approaches from the individual and state levels, and a case study of Brazil, this article analyses the way in which the notion of responsibility is discursively constructed, demonstrating the manner in which it has been used as an ever-shifting goalpost to deny emerging powers participation at the highest levels of global strategic decision-making. Most often, this is done by equating "responsibility" with the ability and willingness to use robust military force.

Protection or Interference? The Legitimacy of Contemporary Humanitarian Interventions and the Engagement of Nonhegemonic Powers

“…The RwP proposal was short-lived, and did not result in much conceptual innovation (Kenkel and Martins 2016). It reinforced the notion that missions should be faithful to their mandates, and that the use of force should be a last resort.…”

“…Nevertheless, this did not resonate sufficiently with global actors to lead to its complete adoption. Without pleasing Western powers, because it was aimed at more rigorous control of criteria for trigging international action, or pleasing contesting countries, given its appearance of reinforcing the possibility of interference (Benner 2013), the Brazilian formulation failed to make a significant impact on prescriptions for the operationalisation of interventions (Kenkel and Martins 2016;Kenkel and Stefan 2016). One reason why this proposal was so short-lived was the difficulty in formulating norms for international responsibility beyond those supporting the imperative of force (Benner 2013).…”

From Developing Country Leader to Flexible Negotiator: New Directions in Brazilian Trade Strategy

“…Instead of following a linear path to higher status, the rise of Brazil is accompanied by more complicated policy-making, thus producing a blurry picture of Brazilian foreign policy (ibid.). Unease with external expectations and status considerations thus brings Brazil into conflict with notions of responsibility in international relations (compare Bukovansky et al, 2012;Kenke & Trote Martins, 2016). Using human rights discussions and normative debates over the use of force, Harig and Kenkel (2017) delineate how Brazil's shift in the 2000s towards the centre of global governance went hand in hand with uncertainties over its role in shaping key international security norms.…”

What doesn’t kill a norm makes it stronger? Brazil’s contestation of the responsibility to protect

“…At the very core of this contestation lies the question of the role of coercive measures in the framework of R2P and the process of regulating the collective use of military force (Welsh 2019). Brazil is one of the actors that has stood out in its normative engagement with the responsibility to protect (Almeida 2014;Kenkel & Martins 2016;Stuenkel & Tourinho 2014), advancing its own R2P reform proposal, coined "responsibility while protecting" (RwP), in 2011. The aftermath of the 2011 UN Security Council-backed NATO intervention in Libya cast serious doubts on the use of force to uphold R2P, resulting in waves of condemnation on the manner in which the mandate was carried out.…”