A “Responsibility” or “Duty” to Protect? Politics and the Enforcement of International Law

Abstract

In this article I argue that the enforcement of international law remains hamstrung by the constitutional competencies afforded to the Permanent Five members of the Security Council; so long as these powers remain, the enforcement of international human rights law will remain highly selective and inconsistent. Though the Responsibility to Protect has emerged as a widely heralded concept, its capacity to influence international politics is profoundly diminished by virtue of its recognition of the systemic status quo. I argue that so long as the Security Council has a right rather than a duty to protect individuals from mass atrocities, they will exercise politically motivated discretion, regardless of their rhetorical commitment to concepts like R2P.