9.4 The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine emerged as a response to global failures in preventing mass atrocities. It challenges traditional notions of state sovereignty, asserting that sovereignty includes the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

R2P consists of three pillars: state responsibility, international assistance, and collective action. While it prioritizes prevention and diplomacy, R2P allows for international intervention when a state fails to protect its people, raising concerns about potential misuse and sovereignty violations.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Origins and Development

Top images from around the web for Origins and Development

• 

  Did You Know?: R2P Monitor,issue 35, 15 September 2017 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  “Tool in the R2P Toolbox”? Analysing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Three ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Did You Know?: R2PCS Commentary on the Crisis in Burma View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Did You Know?: R2P Monitor,issue 35, 15 September 2017 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  “Tool in the R2P Toolbox”? Analysing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Three ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Origins and Development

• 

  Did You Know?: R2P Monitor,issue 35, 15 September 2017 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  “Tool in the R2P Toolbox”? Analysing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Three ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Did You Know?: R2PCS Commentary on the Crisis in Burma View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Did You Know?: R2P Monitor,issue 35, 15 September 2017 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  “Tool in the R2P Toolbox”? Analysing the Role of the International Criminal Court in the Three ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Global political commitment endorsed by all UN member states in 2005 to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
• Emerged as response to international community failures to prevent mass atrocities (Rwanda, Srebrenica, Kosovo) during 1990s
• Challenges traditional state sovereignty notions asserting sovereignty entails responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities
• Consists of three pillars
  • State's responsibility to protect its population
  • International community's responsibility to assist states in fulfilling this duty
  • International community's responsibility to take collective action if state fails to protect its population
• First introduced in 2001 report of International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), commissioned by Canadian government
• Formally adopted by UN General Assembly in 2005 World Summit Outcome Document marking transition from theoretical concept to international norm

Key Components and Implementation

• Applies only to four specific crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing)
• Requires clear evidence of large-scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing, either occurring or imminently anticipated
• Prioritizes preventive measures and capacity-building efforts over reactive measures
• Emphasizes importance of early warning systems and diplomatic initiatives
• Regional organizations play crucial role as first responders and mediators in potential crisis situations
• UN Security Council serves as primary authority for authorizing collective action under R2P through Chapter VII of UN Charter

Principles for Invoking R2P

Threshold and Responsibility

• High threshold for invocation requiring clear evidence of large-scale atrocities or imminent threat
• Primary responsibility to protect lies with the state
• International intervention considered only when state unable or unwilling to fulfill responsibility
• Action must adhere to principles of right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects of success

Decision-Making and Authority

• UN Security Council serves as primary authority for authorizing collective action
• Typically invokes Chapter VII of UN Charter for R2P interventions
• Regional organizations often act as first responders and mediators in potential crisis situations
• Emphasizes preventive measures and capacity-building over reactive interventions
• Utilizes early warning systems and diplomatic initiatives to anticipate and prevent atrocities

Controversies of R2P

Sovereignty and Intervention

• Critics argue R2P can be used as pretext for powerful states to intervene in weaker states' affairs
• Potential undermining of state sovereignty raises concerns
• Selective application criticized with geopolitical interests often determining when and where doctrine invoked
• Concerns about R2P being used to justify regime change (2011 Libya intervention)

Implementation Challenges

• Lack of clear framework for post-intervention reconstruction and state-building identified as significant weakness
• Focus on military intervention overshadows importance of preventive measures and non-coercive tools
• Implementation hampered by veto power of permanent UN Security Council members (Syria situation)
• Critics contend R2P may inadvertently prolong conflicts by encouraging rebel groups to provoke government crackdowns

Effectiveness of R2P

Successes and Contributions

• Contributed to normative shift in international relations emphasizing protection of civilians in conflict situations
• Credited with successful interventions preventing violence escalation (Kenya 2007-2008, Côte d'Ivoire 2011)
• Enhanced development of early warning mechanisms and preventive diplomacy initiatives
• Influenced military doctrine and peacekeeping operations focusing on civilian protection in conflict zones

Challenges and Limitations

• Faced significant challenges in cases with limited or ineffective international response (Darfur, Syria, Myanmar)
• Effectiveness constrained by lack of political will, conflicting national interests, and major power disagreements in UN Security Council
• Assessing overall effectiveness remains challenging due to difficulty measuring prevented atrocities
• Long-term impact of interventions on affected societies difficult to evaluate
• Selective application and inconsistent implementation across different situations raise questions about doctrine's universal applicability