The Genesis of R2P

State Sovereignty ◽

World Summit ◽

Gareth Evans ◽

The World ◽

High Level ◽

Early Human ◽

This chapter addresses the evolution of the responsibility to protect concept from September 1999 to its adoption in the World Summit Outcome Document of September 2005. It covers Kofi Annan’s ‘dilemma of intervention’, some early human security initiatives by Canada including the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) and its report The Responsibility to Protect which first articulated the moniker as well as the concept, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, the negotiations and Outcome Document of the World Summit, and the early incorporation of protection of civilians within Security Council resolutions. Throughout this narrative, the importance of sustained advocacy by key individuals—including Kofi Annan, Lloyd Axworthy, and Gareth Evans among others—is presented as vital to the evolution (in theory and in practice) of the responsibility to protect.

Dehumanizing R2P: Preventing Mass Atrocities without Human Security?

Asian Social Science ◽

10.5539/ass.v12n6p23 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 12 (6) ◽

pp. 23

Author(s):

Carla Barqueiro

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Human Security ◽

United Nations Security Council ◽

Human Beings ◽

World Summit ◽

Security Discourse ◽

The World ◽

The United Nations ◽

<p class="a"><span lang="EN-US">In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the World Summit Outcome Document, including three key paragraphs articulating the international community’s responsibility to protect (R2P) civilians from mass atrocities, including war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Some key controversies and shortcomings of the current R2P principle remain absent from the debate, namely the lack of a human-centered approach from which R2P can be more adequately understood and implemented. I will make three key arguments following from this gap. Firstly, the original articulation of R2P developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 sought to locate itself largely within the human security discourse to overcome the bureaucratic and “national-interest” obstacles of P5 decision-making on international peace and security as it relates to mass atrocities. Secondly, the state-centric articulation of R2P adopted in the World Summit Outcome Document in 2005, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in 2006, has reified the inherent problem associated with allowing the UN Security Council the exclusive right to make key global security decisions on egregious crimes perpetrated against civilians. Thirdly, without embedding R2P within the human security discourse, specifically understanding human beings as the referents of security, the principle offers very little significant normative or political progress on the protection of civilians, and will continue to fall short as a galvanizing call to action to prevent mass atrocities, and save civilian lives. </span></p>

Indian Perspectives on the ‘Responsibility to Protect'

International Studies ◽

10.1177/0020881720930605 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 57 (3) ◽

pp. 296-316

Author(s):

Akanksha Singh

Keyword(s):

Developing Countries ◽

Security Council ◽

Initial Phase ◽

Humanitarian Intervention ◽

World Summit ◽

The Us ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The World ◽

Case Basis

The concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) took shape to refine the contested concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’. In the initial phase, the concept of R2P did not receive enthusiastic endorsement. Developing countries including India perceived it as a new body with the old spirit and likened it with the concept of humanitarian intervention, and this was reinforced by the US-led war against Iraq in 2003. However, the 2005 World Summit proved to be a watershed in the evolution of R2P, just as it is a landmark to understand an important phase of India’s approach to the idea. It would not be accurate to characterize India as a determined nay-sayer on R2P endorsement, particularly in view of the widely known priority India attached at the World Summit to the question of United Nations (UN) Security Council enlargement. Eventually, by 2009 (with the introduction of ‘three- pillar principles’ of R2P), India became a major proponent for the cautious and legitimate implementation of R2P. However, the experiences gained from Libya made India become a voice of caution in invoking forcible options under the R2P principle in Syria. In this article, the attempt has been made to articulate various permutations and combinations regarding India’s evolving approach to R2P on a case-by-case basis.

The Responsibility to Protect and its Critics: Explaining the Consensus

Global Responsibility to Protect ◽

10.1163/187598411x602017 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 3 (4) ◽

pp. 425-437 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Mónica Serrano

Keyword(s):

State Sovereignty ◽

International Commission ◽

World Summit ◽

Member States ◽

Small Minority ◽

The Third ◽

Pillar Structure ◽

The Impact ◽

AbstractWhile critics have claimed that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a North-South polarising issue and is therefore controversial, this is a deliberate misrepresentation in a rhetorical war led by a small minority of UN member states. The first section of this article briefly reviews the evolution of this emerging norm from its inception in the 2001 report by the International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (ICISS), to its endorsement in 2005 by more than 150 heads of states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, to its more recent configuration in a three-pillar structure. The next part seeks to identify the main criticisms that have been levelled at R2P. It touches on some of the myths and allegations that have long accompanied R2P, as well as on the chief legitimate concerns underlying the shift towards implementation. The third and concluding section briefly touches upon the impact of the interventions in Libya and Côte D'Ivoire upon the evolving R2P consensus, and critically assesses the implications of a normative strategy that has put a premium on unanimity and unqualified consensus.

The Maintenance of International Peace and Security through Prevention of Atrocity Crimes

10.1093/oso/9780190272654.003.0025 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Adama Dieng

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

World Summit ◽

International Peace ◽

Regional Institutions ◽

The World ◽

Peace And Security ◽

Atrocity Crimes ◽

Outcome Document ◽

Proactive Role

This chapter focuses on the role and responsibility of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security through the prevention of atrocity crimes, as reflected in the World Summit Outcome Document. It is argued that, considering the near impossibility of seeking consensus by the veto-wielding members of the Council, in some cases that require its intervention, it is essential that regional institutions assume a greater role in preventing and protecting populations against atrocity crimes. This chapter argues for a renewed approach to international efforts to provide requisite support to these institutions to ensure that they assume a proactive role in protecting populations.

The Status of the “Responsibility to Protect (Rtop)“ Doctrine in Light of the Conflicts in Libya and Syria

European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies ◽

10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p495-495 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 495

Author(s):

Petra Perisic

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Security Council ◽

Use Of Force ◽

World Summit ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The Status ◽

Resolution 1973 ◽

The One ◽

In 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced a new doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)”, which signified an obligation of each state to protect its population from mass atrocities occurring in that state, as well as an obligation on the part of international community to offer such protection if the state in question fails to fulfill its duty. The doctrine of RtoP was subsequently endorsed by states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, though it was formulated more restrictively in comparison to the 2001 Report. In 2011 a conflict broke out in Libya between its ruler Muammar Gaddafi and the protesters against his rule. Government forces were brutal in their attempt to quell the protests and it was not long before different international bodies started to report mass violations of human rights. Surprisingly, the UN Security Council was not deadlocked by veto and passed the Resolution 1973, which invoked the RtoP principle and authorized the use of force. Supporters of RtoP hailed such an application of the principle and believed that the case of Libya was just a beginning of a successful bringing RtoP to life. Such predictions turned out to be premature. Not long after the Libyan conflict, the one in Syria began. Although Syrian people was faced with the same humanitarian disaster as Libyan did, the Security Council could not agree on passing of the resolution which would authorize the use of force to halt human rights violations. Two crises are being analyzed, as well as reasons behind such a disparate reaction of the Security Council in very similar circumstances.

How the Responsibility to Protect Influences the Security Council’s Powers, Limits and Dynamic

Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies ◽

10.1163/18781527-00402005 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 315-353 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lisa-Marie Komp

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

World Summit ◽

Humanitarian Crises ◽

State Practice ◽

The World ◽

The Future ◽

Council Work

In 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was adopted in the World Summit Outcome with the aim to enable an efficient response to humanitarian crises by making the Security Council “work better”. The swift reaction to the events in Libya sparked the hope that the new concept enabled the Security Council to function this smoothly in the future. The debates within the Council in relation to the NATO intervention demonstrate that the Responsibility to Protect was able to contribute to this success in certain, limited ways. At the same time, these debates were herald to the problems experienced in relation to the events in Syria. Through an analyses of the debates concerning Libya within the Council, debates in other UN bodies related to the new concept, State practice, and relevant documents, this article will outline the potential of the Responsibility to Protect to make the Council “work better”, as well as its limitations.

Regionalising the Responsibility to Protect: Possibilities, Capabilities and Actualities

Global Responsibility to Protect ◽

10.1163/187598409x450802 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 1 (3) ◽

pp. 346-363 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Kristin Haugevik

Keyword(s):

State Sovereignty ◽

International Commission ◽

Individual Member ◽

World Summit ◽

The Third ◽

Regional Organisations ◽

International Responsibility ◽

The One ◽

AbstractThis article discusses what role regional organisations can and should play in ensuring implementation of the international Responsibility to Protect (R2P). What formal responsibility and which enabling capabilities do regional organisations have for assuming a role in protecting populations from mass atrocities? The article begins by discussing the formal role projected for regional organisations in the implementation of R2P, individually and vis-à-vis the UN, in the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document. The description of this role is then compared to the one depicted in the advisory 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The second part of the article offers an overview of relevant capabilities held by key regional organisations in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia, capabilities that could enable them to take part in protection tasks prior to, during, or in the aftermath of mass atrocities. In the third part of the report, the capability aspect is seen in relation to the constitutive and constraining impact that individual member states' interests may have on the ability of regional organisations to act within the context of R2P.

Progress, Problems, and Prospects: R2P 15 Years after the World Summit

Global Responsibility to Protect ◽

10.1163/1875-984x-01204002 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 359-362

Author(s):

Charles T. Hunt ◽

Cecilia Jacob ◽

Adrian Gallagher

Keyword(s):

International Level ◽

World Summit ◽

Short Article ◽

The World ◽

15Th Anniversary ◽

Outcome Document ◽

Critical Reflections

Abstract This short article introduces the GR2P Forum reflecting on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine 15 years after it was institutionalised at the international level through the World Summit Outcome Document. It contextualises the relevance of critical reflections on the R2P at its 15th anniversary and then lays out the aims and objectives of the Forum. It provides an overview of the different contributions, describing the perspectives of the authors and the key arguments they present.

Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm

Ethics & International Affairs ◽

10.1017/s0892679411000219 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 25 (3) ◽

pp. 263-269 ◽

Cited By ~ 61

Author(s):

Alex J. Bellamy

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Secretary General ◽

General Assembly ◽

World Summit ◽

Significant Progress ◽

Un Security Council ◽

Resolution 1973 ◽

High Level

The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) played an important role in shaping the world's response to actual and threatened atrocities in Libya. Not least, the adoption of Resolution 1973 by the UN Security Council on May 17, 2011, approving a no-fly zone over Libya and calling for “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, reflected a change in the Council's attitude toward the use of force for human protection purposes; and the role played by the UN's new Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect points toward the potential for this new capacity to identify threats of mass atrocities and to focus the UN's attention on preventing them. Given the reluctance of both the Security Council and the wider UN membership even to discuss RtoP in the years immediately following the 2005 World Summit—the High-level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the General Assembly that gave birth to RtoP—these two facts suggest that significant progress has been made thanks to the astute stewardship of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is personally committed to the principle. Where it was once a term of art employed by a handful of like-minded countries, activists, and scholars, but regarded with suspicion by much of the rest of the world, RtoP has become a commonly accepted frame of reference for preventing and responding to mass atrocities.

A conceptual safari: Africa and R2P

Regions & Cohesion ◽

10.3167/reco.2011.010104 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 32-53 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yolanda Spies ◽

Patrick Dzimiri

Keyword(s):

Human Security ◽

International Community ◽

Secretary General ◽

State Sovereignty ◽

World Summit ◽

Critical Stage ◽

Doctrinal Development ◽

Humanitarian Crises ◽

Key Concepts

The Responsibility to Protect is a new human security paradigm that re-conceptualizes state sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right. Its seminal endorsement by the 2005 World Summit has however not consolidated the intellectual parameters of the norm. Neither has it succeeded in galvanizing R2P's doctrinal development; hence the January 2009 appeal by the UN secretary-general for the international community to operationalize R2P at the doctrinal level, in addition to at institutional and policy levels. R2P represents a critical stage in the debate on intervention for human protection purposes, but its key concepts require more exploration. Africa is a uniquely placed stakeholder in R2P on account of its disproportionate share of humanitarian crises and because Africans have played key roles in conceptualizing the norm. The continent should therefore not just offer an arena for, but indeed take the lead in, the conceptual journey that R2P's doctrinal development requires.Spanish La responsabilidad de proteger es un nuevo paradigma de seguridad humana que reconceptualiza la soberanía del Estado como una responsabilidad en lugar de un derecho. Pese al respaldo inicial que obtuvo en la Cumbre Mundial de 2005, los parámetros intelectuales de esta norma no se han consolidado. En esta cumbre tampoco se logró fortalecer el desarrollo de la doctrina del R2P (Responsibility to Protect), por lo que se produjo un llamado en enero de 2009 por parte del secretario general de la ONU para poner en práctica el nivel de la doctrina del R2P, además de los niveles institucional y político. La R2P representa una etapa crítica en el debate sobre la intervención con fines de protección humana, pero sus conceptos clave requieren más profundización. África tiene una posición única en la R2P dada su parte desproporcionada en las crisis humanitarias y porque los africanos han tenido un papel clave en la conceptualización de la norma. Por ello, el continente debería no sólo ofrecer un espacio, sino de hecho tomar la delantera en el trazado conceptual que requiere el desarrollo de la doctrina de la R2P.French Le «devoir de protection» est un nouveau paradigme de la sécurité humaine qui redéfinit la souveraineté de l'État comme une responsabilité plutôt que comme un droit. Cependant, lors du Sommet Mondial de 2005 les paramètres du concept n'ont pas été consolidés. Ce sommet n'a pas non plus réussi à activer le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection (en anglais «Responsibility to Protect» ou «R2P»), d'où l'appel lancé en janvier 2009 par le Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies à la communauté internationale pour qu'elle rende le «devoir de protection» opérationnel à un niveau doctrinal en plus des niveaux institutionnel et politique. Le devoir de protection représente un moment critique du débat sur les interventions ayant pour but la protection humaine, mais ses concepts méritent une analyse encore plus approfondie. En matière de devoir de protection, l'Afrique est une partie prenante incomparable, du fait de sa part disproportionnée de crises humanitaires, mais aussi parce que les Africains ont joué un rôle clé dans la conceptualisation de ce e norme-là. Dans ces conditions, le continent africain ne devrait-il pas, non seulement offrir le terrain d'étude, mais aussi prendre la tête dans le cheminement conceptuel que le développement doctrinal du devoir de protection exige ?