This special issue of the International Journal of Human Rights titled ‘R2P: Perspectives on the Concept's Meaning, Proper Application and Value’ includes articles that present a wide range of views on various controversial aspects relating to the contested notion of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and its implementation. These aspects include, for instance, the use of force or threat of force by the international community under the R2P rationale, with or without UN Security Council authorisation and/or United Nations General Assembly endorsement, in response to mass atrocity where a state is unable and/or unwilling to address mass atrocity crimes within its own territory or under its territorial jurisdiction. Further, the scope of R2P is considered in various articles in terms of, for instance, its application during peacetime to address mass atrocity crimes; viability when implemented in a failed state; relevance to inter-state conflicts and not just intra-state conflict, potential for application to man-made or natural environmental disasters where the state is unable or unwilling to address the consequent human suffering, arguably committing crimes against humanity in the process, and R2P's application to the global refugee crisis, much of it involving persons fleeing mass atrocity situations. The role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in reinforcing and clarifying R2P is considered as is the potential utility of a United Nations Emergency Peace Service regarding the prevention R2P obligation of the international community. Also included are articles presenting empirical studies on the emergence of R2P as a contested norm and its varied interpretations in United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and United Nations Human Rights Council discussions. In addition, the often insubstantial legal basis for much of the rhetoric and semantics of R2P is addressed as is the viability of the R2P principle in an age where cosmopolitan civic engagement is more feasible than ever before. More specifically:
Jessica Almqvist examines in an international law context the actual and potential use by states and regional organisations of various coercive measures in implementing R2P where the UNSC has failed to act to prevent or end particular mass atrocities.
Joseph Besigye Bazirake and Paul Bukuluki discuss the roots and evolution of the contested R2P notion, offer an assessment of the viability of R2P and consider particular issues regarding R2P's application in the African context.
Auriane Botte examines the implications of framing R2P as a response to grave, legally defined international crimes per se rather than as a response to large-scale threats to life and to international peace and security not characterised in legal terms but rather in political and moral terms open to dispute.
Alise Coen considers R2P in the broader context of various collective efforts to address transnational problems with a particular emphasis on R2P as a framework in addressing the current global refugee crisis created by mass atrocity crimes.
David William Gethings explores perspectives on R2P and democracy in the context of the digital age that fosters ‘cosmopolitan civic engagement’ – the latter being participation that acknowledges and is directed to meeting citizen responsibilities that extend beyond national borders.
Sassan Gholiagha analyses R2P discourse in the UNSC discussions on Libya and Syria between 2011 and early 2015 as a pathway to understanding the inconsistent application of R2P and the potential for a more robust application of R2P in future.
Pinar Gözen Ercan considers the applicability of R2P to the Gaza situation, various characterisations of the legal status of Gaza and the broader question of whether R2P applies also to inter-state and not just intra-state conflict.
Sonja Grover discusses the semantics of R2P and, with reference to treaty interpretation and R2P-relevant documents' textual analysis, advances the proposition that even when not authorised by the UNSC, the use of force to prevent or end R2P international crimes where all other options have failed does not constitute the state act of aggression.
Aidan Hehir examines the international community's response to the situation in Bahrain as a vehicle to explore the contemporary efficacy of R2P and, in the process, challenge the notion that R2P has become a ‘lens' through which intra-state humanitarian crises are viewed.
Annie Herro considers the potential utility of a standing UN force or service (United Nations Emergency Peace Service) authorised either by the UNSC or the United Nations General Assembly for short-term deployment directed to R2P's implementation in the prevention of mass atrocity.
Lindsey Kingston considers R2P's scope of application and examines its potential to address institutionalised violence using the plight of the Rohingya in Burma, referred to by the United Nations as ‘the world's most persecuted minority', as a case example.
Konstantin Kleine examines the history and scope of the R2P notion and considers the viability of rationales for its application to both man-made and natural environmental disasters.
Gabriele Lombardo considers the malleability of R2P in its current interpretation and application using the Syrian and Libyan situations as case studies.
Marco Longobardo considers various International Court of Justice decisions and the viability of R2P in the context of erga omnes and erga omnes partes considerations and obligations.
Connall Mallory and Stuart Wallace examine, in the context of European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, counter-arguments to states' human rights liability concerns allegedly acting as a deterrent to their involvement in United Nations-sponsored R2P coalitions that involve the use of military force.
Oscar Mwangi examines, using Somalia as a case study, the challenges of effective beneficent R2P implementation in the circumstances associated with a collapsed state.
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan considers the international law basis for reaching consensus on whether and when Pillar Three R2P mechanisms should be and can be legitimately implemented in particular state situations as well as the role of the ICC in supporting the international community meeting its Pillar Three R2P obligations.
Maggie Powers provides an empirical study examining UNSC and United Nations Human Rights Council documents referencing R2P and tracks R2P rhetoric and acceptance of the R2P principle as a norm, also post the Libyan intervention.
Heidarali Teimouri uses interactional law theory to consider the inconsistent application of R2P in respect of various mass atrocity situations and suggests that there is at present no shared understanding among states of R2P and its implications.
Serena Timmoneri examines R2P's applicability to peacetime atrocities using North Korea as a case study.
Whether one considers R2P novel in all or only certain respects or but the re-packaging of well-established legal precepts (‘old wine in a new bottle' as Stephen Marks and Nicholas Cooper suggest; the old wine being ‘just war' and/or ‘humanitarian intervention’), it appears that as long as hope lives for an end to human suffering, or at least a humane response to it, so will R2P as a notion. It remains to be seen, however, whether future experience with application of the R2P principle will serve to sustain the hope for sovereignty as responsibility most often realised and for a consistent effective international response to impending or actual mass atrocities wherever and whenever the international community is the only avenue remaining to potentially remedy the situation.