Review Essay: Transforming R2P from Rhetoric to RealityEvans Gareth, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2008. Pp. 349, cloth. $29.95 US.Bellamy Alex J., Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. Pp. 249, paper. $47.90 US.Cooper Richard H. Kohler Juliette Voïnov, Responsibility to Protect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Pp. 271, cloth. £42.50.

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-113
Author(s):  
Damien Rogers
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

On Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on Gareth Evans' book, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008). The forum features contributions from Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson, and it concludes with a response from Gareth Evans.

On Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on Gareth Evans' book, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008). The forum features contributions from Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson, and it concludes with a response from Gareth Evans.

Response to Reviews by Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-327
Author(s):  
Gareth Evans
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on Gareth Evans' book, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008). The forum features contributions from Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson, and it concludes with a response from Gareth Evans.

War Perils in the Responsibility to Protect

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Brookings Institution ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on Gareth Evans' book, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008). The forum features contributions from Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson, and it concludes with a response from Gareth Evans.

Responsibility to Protect in International Criminal Law

Postgenocide ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 112-134
Author(s):  
Jobair Alam
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
National Politics ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Normative Foundations

This chapter considers the worst contemporary state-led prosecution of a minority group, which amounts to genocide, namely the Rohingya. It examines the atrocity crimes committed against them under international criminal law (ICL) and the application of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) thereupon. It suggests that such atrocities are constitutive of violations of jus cogens which warrants obligatio erga omnes. Accordingly, the perpetrators can be brought to justice under inter/national and universal jurisdictions, which, nonetheless, has not yet occurred. Given the failure of ICL mechanisms, the normative foundations of the R2P can provide valuable tools for intercepting mass atrocity crimes. The Rohingya—who face direct and structural violence at the hands of the Myanmar state—need protection from these crimes. The chapter explains how insular national politics can undo the gains made by the international community in upholding the distinctiveness of humanitarian claims through the application of the R2P.

The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmine Nahlawi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Chemical Attack ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
Red Line

The 21 August 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta led to the mobilisation of the international community after long international paralysis towards the ongoing conflict in Syria. It is unclear, however, why or under what legal basis states chose to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in exclusion to other mass atrocity crimes committed within the country. This article evaluates the legal underpinnings of President Obama’s ‘red line’ on the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the context of R2P. It notes that while all states condemned the Ghouta attack and called for accountability in this regard, only a minority of states shared the United States’ position that chemical weapons constituted a red line in their own right. Overall, it is maintained that the ‘red line’ phenomenon was case-specific to the Syrian conflict, reflecting geopolitical interests of world powers rather than signifying a new precedent for R2P’s application.

Implementing r2p: Towards a Regional Solution?

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bolarinwa Adediran
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
International Action ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Regional Organisations ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Syrian Conflict

Since the adoption of the principles of the Responsibility to Protect (r2p) in 2005, proponents and critics alike have accepted that it has not brought about a consistent and effective response to mass atrocity crimes. The incapacity that the Security Council exhibits in addressing the Syrian conflict provides a compelling justification for the need to examine alternative mechanisms through which the principles of the doctrine can be implemented. This paper argues that regional organisations should be considered legitimate authorising mechanisms in place of the Security Council in implementing r2p. The use of regional institutions as authorising mechanisms has not been properly considered or rigorously defended. In the paper, I make a case for regional organisations in authorising international action during mass atrocity situations by first establishing the legitimacy of regional organisations to act in response to local disputes. I propose and defend four arguments that provide justification and establish the utility of regional arrangements as alternative authorising mechanisms. I also examine and respond to three key objections that can be made against regional organisations. Finally, I outline a set of criteria that should determine which regional organisations are considered legitimate actors during mass atrocity situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document