Abstract
Abstract ‘Consistency’ has a range of meanings in the context of human protection practice. This article conceptualises consistency – a basic premise for the legitimacy of norms, both procedurally as well as substantively. First, ‘consistency’ can refer to the coherence of the human protection framework. Second, consistency can refer to the degree to which protection responses adhere to international law and conform with international norms. Third, ‘consistency’ can mean the absence of variability and unevenness in the application of norms. I argue that consistency understood as coherence facilitates protection responses in line with international law, and, second, that a coherent protection framework encourages the even and invariable application of norms of protection by assigning responsibilities to individual protection agents. However, the international human protection regime remains incoherent: it is ambiguous and it is insufficiently integrated with other regimes and across institutions.
Highlights
Introduction con*sis*ten*cy[1 2] a: agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole b: harmony of conduct or practice with past performance or stated aims
I argue that consistency understood as coherence facilitates protection responses in line with international law, and, second, that a coherent protection framework encourages the even and invariable application of norms of protection by assigning responsibilities to individual protection agents
The concept departs from a narrower understanding conflating protection with military intervention designed to prevent atrocities and mitigate humanitarian suffering, deflecting some of the critique levelled against similar concepts, including ‘humanitarian intervention’, and the ‘responsibility to protect’
Summary
Consistency as coherence, in this context, means the absence of norm conflict. Through the prism of political theory, Aristotle provides a useful description of the meaning of the term in this interpretation. The discursive shift from ‘humanitarian intervention’, associated with armed intervention, to a ‘responsibility to protect’, incorporating a repertoire of measures to halt or prevent atrocity crimes, has aided the reconciliation of international norms relating to human rights enforcement on the one hand, and international norms pertaining to the sanctity of state sovereignty and the inviolability of territorial integrity on the other It has done so, first, through the ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ formula first outlined by Francis Deng in the context of the protection of internally displaced. Norms consolidate where practices are institutionalised and actors build trust and develop expectations about appropriate responses to specific situations, as can be seen in other issue areas, including trade, the environment, or arms proliferation.[35] In the realm of human rights protection, an international regime defines expectations, and structures collective action.[36] The institutionalisation of norms of protection suggests the growing influence of the emerging protection regime. That consistent adherence to norms of protection, as well the consistent application of these norms, as will be discussed below, allows protection agents and beneficiaries to invest resources in the institutions that embody the regime, and to co-ordinate their responses through these institutions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
