R2P and Prevention: The International Community and Its Role in the Determinants of Mass Atrocity

Abstract

There has been increased focus on atrocity prevention and the preventative elements associated with Pillar ii of the Responsibility to Protect. Policymakers and academics have offered a range of short-term preventative measures available so that the international community can better fulfil its Pillar ii responsibilities. This article challenges this current R2P thinking by arguing that its short-termism insufficiently focuses on de-escalation of risk within already present cycles of violence while dealing superficially with long-term causes and the ways in which the international community is a contributing factor in underwriting systemic and structural determinants of violence which erode state resilience against mass atrocity. As an alternative, this article examines a number of ways in which key actors of the international community contribute to determinants of mass violence and further offer recommendations for how they could better discharge their long-term preventative responsibilities by first reforming their own practices.

An R2P Commission: A Proposal for Holding States Accountable to Their Responsibility to Protect

“…This ignores a vital question in how to hold the international community accountable for the duty of assistance under Pillar Two and its relevance to atrocity prevention. This also overlooks the interlinked concept of cosmopolitan negative duties to avoid the imposition of harm ( Linklater 2001 ;Shapcott 2008 ) and the actions of international actors-such as arms sales, regime ties, and damaging trade policies-that have been argued to weaken state resilience and contribute to outbreaks of mass atrocity ( Shaw 2012 ;Dunford and Neu 2019 ;Bohm and Brown 2021 ). Given that the three pillars are meant to be taken as equal under the R2P concept ( Bellamy and Drummond 2011 , 181), it is important that attention is paid not just to holding states accountable to their duty to respond under Pillar Three but also that states are held accountable for their responsibility to assist others, and not undermine this duty of assistance, under Pillar Two.…”

“…Regarding Pillar Two duties of assistance, the R2P Commission could provide a means for holding states to account for damaging practices linked to the commission of atrocities-such as arms sales and support for oppressive regimes-which scholars have argued undermine the Pillar Two duty of assistance within R2P ( Dunford and Neu 2019 ;Bohm and Brown 2021 ). For instance, there is scope for complementarity between an R2P Commission and scrutiny of the international arms trade.…”

An international responsibility to develop in order to protect? A responsibility too far

“…With regard to the RtoP, they share the middle ground view that socioeconomic factors are a stress condition but call for a fundamental rethink. In expansive critiques that go beyond the parameters of this article, a wide range of issues are raised including the legitimacy of intervention, the arms trade, and socioeconomics as they criticize the RtoP for failing to acknowledge the role that states and companies play in creating and upholding the underlying structures that create these conditions in the first place (Bohm and Brown 2020;Neu 2019a, 2019b;Brown and Bohm 2015). As these accounts are so far ranging, the question 'why focus on socioeconomics?'…”

“…Middle ground academics claim that the RtoP should engage with development but refrain from broader debates which call for international socioeconomic reforms to be included in 'mass atrocity' i prevention strategies (Bellamy and Luck 2018;Bellamy 2011a;Welsh 2016;McLoughlin 2014a;Reike, Sharma, and Welsh 2015). Finally, radicals either challenge (Bohm and Brown 2020;Brown and Bohm 2015) or reject the RtoP Neu 2019a, 2019b; Zimmerman 2014), for two reasons. First, they argue the RtoP legitimises underlying structures and on-going practices which enable mass atrocities to occur in the first place.…”

Everyday genocide: femicide, transicide and the responsibility to protect

“…Moreover, the normative orientation toward prevention strategies includes approaching structural and systemic root causes of conflict – not just proximal triggers – enabling states governments to do more than react to mass violence after the fact but also to build up positive conditions that will actually prevent it (Bohm and Brown, 2020). Finally, R2P aims to bring attention to civilian response capabilities to prevent mass atrocities and rethink the sole use of military force (national and international) as an operational response to mass atrocity.…”