A critical reflection on the conceptual and practical limitations of the responsibility to protect

Abstract

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is without a doubt an iconic representation of the international system's effort to reinterpret the traditional understanding of state sovereignty within a growing trend towards human rights considerations. This article presents the scepticism surrounding the R2P's journey within a conservative and state-centric status quo of international relations, framed on a basic set of 1648 Westphalia treaty ideals. The article analyses the limitations in the conceptualization and actual practice of the R2P, with an incisive examination of its tendency towards becoming the norm. An African introspection based on the application of the R2P also offers an insightful critique of the principle in the changing global order.

Keywords:

• sovereignty
• human rights
• responsibility to protect (R2P)
• peace
• security
• humanitarian intervention

Notes on contributors

Joseph Besigye Bazirake is a Doctoral student at the Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice, University of the Free State, South Africa. He holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science (International Relations) and a master's degree in Peace and Conflict Studies, both from Makerere University in Uganda. His current research undertakings revolve around social cohesion theories of change in post-apartheid South Africa.

Dr Paul Bukuluki is an Associate Professor at Makerere University, School of Social Sciences, Uganda. He is also a Guest Professor at the MA Peace Studies Program, University of Innsbruck. He is a cultural anthropologist with particular interest in peace, recovery and development. He has a master's degree in Peace and Conflict Transformation (University of Innsbruck, Austria) and a PhD in Social and Cultural Anthropology (University of Vienna, Austria). He is specialized in peace and conflict studies, gender, sexual- and gender-based violence research, policy and programming particularly in conflict and post conflict settings.

ORCID

Joseph Besigye Bazirake http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1720-999X

Notes

1 R. Amer, ‘Non-use of Force, Non-interference and Security: The Case of Pacific Asia’, in The Security-Development Nexus: Peace, Conflict and Development, ed. R. Amer et al. (London: Anthem Press, 2012), 89–100; B. Simma, ed. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

2 S. Beaulac, ‘The Westphalian Model in Defining International Law: Challenging the Myth.’ Australian Journal of Legal History 8, no. 2 (2004): 181–214.

3 B. Buzan and R. Little. ‘Beyond Westphalia? Capitalism after the “Fall”.’ Review of International Studies 25, no. 5 (1999): 89–104; S.D. Krasner, ‘Rethinking the Sovereign State Model.’ Review of International Studies 27, no. 5 (2001): 17–42.

4 L. Henkin, L. ‘Kosovo and the Law of “Humanitarian Intervention”.’ The American Journal of International Law 93, no. 4 (1999): 824–828. doi:10.2307/2555346; T.M. Ocran, ‘The Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of Robust Peacekeeping.’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 25, no. 1 (2002): 1–9.

5 Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

6 Article 2.7 of the UN Charter states: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

7 V.P. Nanda, T.F.J. Muther and A.E. Eckert, ‘Tragedies in Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Rwanda and Liberia – Revisiting the Validity of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law – Part II.’ Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 26, no. 5 (1997): 827–869.

8 Article 39 of the UN Charter states: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

9 A.J. Bellamy, “The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention.” International Affairs 84, no. 4 (2008): 615–639.

10 M. Mamdani, Saviours and survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror (New York: Pantheon Books, 2009).

11 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (International Development Research Centre, 2001).

12 E. Massingham, ‘Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes: Does the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Advance the Legality of the Use of Force for Humanitarian Ends?’ International Review of the Red Cross 91, no. 876 (2009): 803–831.

13 UNSG Report, ‘High-level Panel on Threats, & Change Report.’ A More Secure World (2004).

14 UNSG Report, ‘High-level Panel on Threats, & Change Report.’ A More Secure World (2004).

15 A.L. Bannon, ‘Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism.’ Yale Law Journal 115, no. 5 (2006): 1157–1165; A.J. Bellamy, ‘Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit.’ Ethics & International Affairs 20, no. 2 (2006): 143–169, doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00012.x; UNGA, 60/1 (24 October 2005),‘World Summit Outcome,’ UN Doc A/Res/60/1 (2005).

16 B. Ki-moon, ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General.’ UN Document A/63/677, January 12 (2009): 22.

17 B. Ki-moon, ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General.’ UN Document A/63/677, January 12 (2009): 22.

18 S. Chesterman, ‘“Leading from Behind”: The Responsibility to Protect, the Obama Doctrine, and Humanitarian Intervention After Libya.’ Ethics & International Affairs 25, no. 3 (2011): 279–285.

19 M. Kahler, ‘Legitimacy, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Institutions.’ Politics, Philosophy & Economics 10, no. 1 (2011): 20–45.

20 A. Cassese, ‘The Fundamental Principles Governing International Relations.’ Chap. 5 in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 86–116.

21 A.J. Bellamy, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention.’ International Affairs 84, no. 4 (2008): 615–639.

22 L. Pingeot and W. Obenland, ‘In Whose Name?: A Critical View on the Responsibility to Protect.’ Global Policy Forum Europe (2014).

23 M. Mamdani, ‘Libya: Politics of Humanitarian Intervention.’ Al Jazeera (2011).

24 J. Prantl and R. Nakano, ‘Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia. How China and Japan Implement the Responsibility to Protect.’ International Relations 25, no. 2 (2011): 204–223.

25 Report of the International commission on Intervention of state sovereignty (December 2001).

26 A. Moseley, ‘Just War Theory.’ The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp144/full 2003; M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

27 J. Prantl and R. Nakano, ‘Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia. How China and Japan Implement the Responsibility to Protect.’ International Relations 25, no. 2 (2011): 204–223.

28 L. Pingeot and W. Obenland, ‘In Whose Name?: A Critical View on the Responsibility to Protect.’ Global Policy Forum Europe (2014).

29 J. Ranney, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Engaging Civil Society.’ The Federalist Debate no. 2 (2007): 13. http://www.ciise-iciss.gc.ca/report-en.asp (accessed 15 June 2015).

30 J. Ranney, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Engaging Civil Society.’ The Federalist Debate no. 2 (2007): 13. http://www.ciise-iciss.gc.ca/report-en.asp (accessed 15 June 2015).

31 Report of the secretary general on early warning, assessment and the responsibility to protect.

32 M. Payandeh, ‘With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity – The Concept of the Responsiblity to Protect Within the Process of International Lawmaking.’ Yale Journal of International Law, 35, no. 2 (2010): 469–516.

33 E. Massingham, ‘Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes: Does the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Advance the Legality of the Use of Force for Humanitarian Ends? International Review of the Red Cross 91, no. 876 (2009): 803–831.

34 Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya” (National Defense University, Washington, D.C., March www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-libya).

35 J. Ranney, ‘Responsibility to Protect: Engaging Civil Society.’ The Federalist Debate no. 2 (2007): 13. http://www.ciise-iciss.gc.ca/report-en.asp (accessed15 June 2015).

36 N. Dobos, ‘Is UN Security Council Authorisation for Armed Humanitarian Intervention Morally Necessary?’ Philosophia 38 no. 3 (2010): 499–515.

37 In Article 4 of the African Union's charter, African leaders pronounced themselves on the right “of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.”

38 G. Evans, ‘Interview: The RtoP Balance Sheet after Libya.’ Thomas G. Weiss, Ramesh Thakur, Mary Ellen O'Connell, Aidan Hehir, Alex J. Bellamy, David Chandler, Rodger Shanahan, Rachel Gerber, Abiodun Williams and Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities In Light of the Libyan Intervention, 40 (2011).

39 A. De Waal, ‘Darfur and the Failure of the Responsibility to Protect.’ International Affairs 83, no. 6 (2007): 1039–1054, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00672.x.

40 A.J. Bellamy, ‘Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention After Iraq.’ Ethics & International Affairs 19, no. 2 (2005): 31–54.

41 R. Thakur, ‘Outlook: Intervention, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Experiences from ICISS.’ Security Dialogue 33, no. 3 (2002): 323–340.

42 C.G. Badescu and L. Bergholm, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-down.’ Security Dialogue 40, no. 3 (2009): 287–309.

43 G. Evans, ‘Interview: The RtoP Balance Sheet after Libya.’ Thomas G. Weiss, Ramesh Thakur, Mary Ellen O'Connell, Aidan Hehir, Alex J. Bellamy, David Chandler, Rodger Shanahan, Rachel Gerber, Abiodun Williams and Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities In Light of the Libyan Intervention, 40 (2011).

44 M. Mamdani, ‘Libya: Politics of Humanitarian Intervention.’ Al Jazeera (2011).

45 A.B. Halakhe, ‘“R2P in Practice”: Ethnic Violence, Elections and Atrocity Prevention in Kenya.’ Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect: Occasional Paper Series No, 4. Available at: https://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/kenya_occasionalpaper_web.pdf (2013) (accessed 15 June 2015).

46 C.G. Badescu and T.G. Weiss, ‘Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?’ International Studies Perspectives 11, no. 4 (2010): 354–374. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00412.x.

47 A.J. Kuperman, ‘R2P: Catchy Name for a Fading Norm.’ Ethnopolitics 10, no. 1 (2011): 125–128. doi:10.1080/17449057.2011.552355.