The responsibility to protect as humanitarian negotiation: A space for the ‘politics of humanity’?

Abstract

This article first situates the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in relation to humanitarianism and the 'politics of humanity' through which common humanity is understood, negotiated and defended in response to 'crises of humanity'. It outlines the humanitarian negotiations at stake, connected with the mass atrocity crimes within the RtoP's remit. Second, it argues that, like other claims made 'in the name of humanity', the power relations implicit in attempts to create, delimit and safeguard 'humanitarian space' need to be unpacked. Third, it assesses the RtoP's potential to become a success with regard to the fulfilment of the humanitarian aspirations it represents, concluding that its inability to escape its political nature should be seen as a strength, not a weakness, but that the relationship between a humanitarian project like the RtoP and the notion of humanity will always be a dynamic, unpredictable and risky one, dependent on judicious political judgement.

Overcoming Power Asymmetry in Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups

“…The concept of R2P has itself been considered a tool to strengthen the position of humanitarian negotiators. Recognizing that power relations limit the impact of humanitarian negotiations, Radice (2016) goes so far as to situate R2P as a "humanitarian project" that strengthens the negotiating position of humanitarians. But this approach is severely limited in contexts in which agreement is required from armed groups.…”

“…Further, Radice's understanding of humanitarian negotiations appears to focus on preventing the four mass atrocity crimes that preoccupy R2P -namely, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The concept therefore has limited utility for humanitarian negotiations aimed at securing access and broader human rights protections from armed groups (Radice 2016).…”

Assessing the Responsibility to Protect’s motivational capacity: The role of humanity

“…Consequently, while the R2P seeks to find a balance between both supporting and reframing state understanding of sovereignty, at its core the R2P also refers to ‘global responsibilities that can only be met by sacrificing national interests’ (Ralph, 2017). This idea of sacrifice can therefore be seen to stem from the moral arguments enforced by the concept of humanity, suggesting the need to ‘protect a vision of common humanity and an associated baseline of solidarity in response to cruelty and human suffering’ (Radice, 2016: 103). As a result, the motivational capacity of humanity remains significantly intertwined with the internalisation of humanitarian concerns within states’ ‘interests and identities’ and the ability of the R2P norm to reinforce these beliefs in order to ‘encompass a concern for the victims of crimes against humanity’ (Brown, 2013: 442).…”