The Responsibility to Protect Norm in Southeast Asia: Framing, Resistance and the Localization Myth

Abstract

There is growing interest among scholars and advocates in the way that the nascent norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is diffusing at the regional level. This article critically explores the spread of R2P in Southeast Asia against the backdrop of recent scholarship on norm localization. It argues that, contrary to some recent analyses, the R2P norm has not been localized in Southeast Asia. Constitutive localization requires the active borrowing of transnational norms by local or regional actors who build congruence with local practices. Although some regional states have used the language of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ there are few signs that local actors are driving the reception of the norm in the region, nor have they institutionalized it. Rather, outsider proponents are the primary advocates and the norm lacks a champion or well-connected ‘insider’ proponent among regional governments or civil society groups. Second, despite an energetic campaign by advocates, emphasizing consensual and capacity-building activities, many governments are still wary of R2P as a potential threat to sovereignty and regime security. As a result, regional states have taken an ‘à la carte’ approach to R2P, accepting aspects of the R2P agenda that they find least threatening or that support their national interests, while ignoring or quietly resisting those they find challenging. Rather than localization, what we are seeing with respect to R2P in Southeast Asia is a dramatic change in the way outsiders are reframing the norm.

Keywords:

• ASEAN
• Localization
• Responsibility to Protect
• Southeast Asia
• Norms

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper was presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association in New York in January 2009. Revised versions were subsequently presented at conferences in Bali and Singapore in late 2009 and July 2010. I am grateful to participants in those meetings for comments and feedback and would also like to acknowledge invaluble assistance from Aubrey Bloomfield, Alistair Cook, Kai Kenkel and Sally Hill. The argument here also benefitted from discussions with Amitav Acharya. Any errors are my own. Research for this project was generously supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Grant.

Notes

1. See for examples Williams (2009); Bellamy and Drummond (2011); Beeson and Bellamy (2010); Aruliah (2011); Tan (2011).

2. Canadian ICISS commissioner Michael Ignatieff briefly argued that the Iraq invasion could be justified in the name of protecting human rights, before reversing himself.

3. See for examples Williams (2009) and Knight (2003).

4. Bellamy (2009: 6–7) argues that prior to the World Summit R2P was a mere “concept”. After the 2005 Summit it was elevated to the status of ‘principle’ which he describes as a “fundamental truth or proposition which serves as the basis for belief leading to action.”

5. For more information about the Asia-Pacific Centre, see its website: http://www.r2pasiapacific.org

6. For a detailed account of the World Summit negotiations, see Bellamy (2006).