The Responsibility to Protect: An Idea Whose Time Has Come … and Gone?

Evans, Gareth

doi:10.1177/0047117808094173

Cited by 77 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, institutional preparedness and political will are also part of the problem of rendering such a principle operational. 25 Edward Luck, who was special adviser to the UN secretary-general on R2P between 2008 and 2012, was tasked with -among other things -working on the conceptual clarification of R2P and creating a broader consensus for this norm. In regard to this issue, Luck points out that R2P's core elements already existed in Africa in the 1990s, becoming codified in the AU's Constitutive Act in 2000 (Art.…”

Section: The Responsibility To Protectmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies

Freire¹,

Lopes²,

Nascimento³

2016

African Security Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its many institutional and political weaknesses and limitations, the African Union (AU) has been developing a variety of tools and mechanisms to respond effectively to complex disasters and emergencies (both natural and manmade) by building up a comprehensive regional security architecture. Furthermore, it has become the first and only regional or international organisation to enshrine the principle of 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) in its Constitutive Act. This regional approach to and formal endorsement of the R2P principle allowed it to assume a particular place in the promotion of peace and security in its area. This article aims to critically assess the effectiveness of the AU on the African continent by exploring its real capacity in preventing and responding to emergencies and violent conflicts, and therefore in rendering the principle of R2P operational. The article argues that the formalisation of principles does not necessarily mean their effective implementation. The organisation's use of the R2P principle is also greatly conditioned by internal and external factors. KEYWORDS

show abstract

Section: The Responsibility To Protectmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies

Freire¹,

Lopes²,

Nascimento³

2016

African Security Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…85). The position was backed by Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan, and the argument deployed by members of NAM was that Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome Document dealt with the questions of protecting civilians from specific crimes, not the endorsement of the norm itself (Evans 2008a).…”

Section: Consolidating R2p At the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining Humanitarian Intervention: The Historical Challenge of R2P

Gilligan

2013

Journal of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thanks largely to lingering concerns about RtoP's potential to legitimize interference in the domestic affairs of states and other fears about abuse, several states displayed what Gareth Evans labeled ''buyer's remorse'' and launched a revolt to prevent the principle's development. 5 Despite the commitment to RtoP at the World Summit, it took six months of intense debate for the Security Council to unanimously adopt Resolution 1674, ''reaffirming'' the World Summit's provisions ''regarding the responsibility to protect.'' 6 Russia, China, and three non-permanent Security Council members (Algeria, the Philippines, and Brazil) initially argued that the World Summit had only committed the General Assembly to deliberation on RtoP and that it was premature for the Security Council to take up the matter.…”

Section: Implementation In the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On

Bellamy¹

2010

Ethics int. aff.

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has become a prominent feature in international debates about preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities. Since its adoption in 2005, it has been discussed in relation to a dozen major crises and been the subject of discussion at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. This article takes stock of the past five years and examines three questions about RtoP: What is its function? Is it a norm, and, if so, what sort? And what contribution has it made to the prevention of atrocities and protection of vulnerable populations? In relation to the first, it argues that RtoP is commonly conceptualized as fulfilling one of two functions (a framework for a policy agenda and a speech-act meant to generate the will to intervene), but that these two functions are incompatible. In relation to the second question, it argues that RtoP is best thought of as two sets of norms relating to the responsibilities of states to their own populations and international responsibilities. The first set are well defined and established, the second though are indeterminate and lack compliance-pull, limiting the extent to which RtoP can serve as a catalyst for action. This, the article argues, is reflected in RtoP's track record thus far. RtoP has failed to generate additional political will in response to atrocity crimes but it has proven useful as both a diplomatic tool and as a policy lens.

show abstract

The Responsibility to Protect: An Idea Whose Time Has Come … and Gone?

Cited by 77 publications

References 1 publication

‘Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies

‘Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies

Redefining Humanitarian Intervention: The Historical Challenge of R2P

The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About