The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On

Abstract

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.

Сотрудничество НАТО С ООН И ЕС: Основные Вызовы

“…Более того, большинство конфликтов сегодняшнего дня происходят на местах, фи-зически удаленных от европейской или евро-атлантической территории, но многие из них считаются представляющими опасность для населения стран-членов ЕС или НАТО. И Концепция человеческой безопасности, которая принята в ЕС, 22 и концеп-ция ООН об «Ответственности защищать» 23 призывает к интернационализации и глобализации ответственности за предотвращение геноцида и массовой жестокости и к защите потенциальных жертв.…”

Response

“…Indeed, one of the more controversial aspects of the just war tradition that is worth considering is whether, when the ethical criteria for just war are met, this obliges the authority to engage in war. At least some theorists hold that engaging in war may be an obligation (Coates 1997: 157;Ramsey 2002: 484) and recent writings on the responsibility to protect tend to support this position (Bellamy 2010;Pattison 2013). By extension, my approach doesn't rule out the possibility that surveillance could be an obligation.…”

Morality, care, and international law

“…It respects the sovereignty of states regardless of their internal virtues. This sovereignty is by no means absolute: it is limited by such recent norms as the Responsibility to Protect, 48 and the norm that developed in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia holding that states resisting groups seeking national self-determination should avoid the use of force as should the groups seeking independence. 49 But international law is appropriately respectful of sovereignty and cautious about allowing military intervention except in exceptional circumstances such as genocide or large-scale ethnic cleansing.…”