Debating the future of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’: the evolution of a moral norm

Abstract

R2P is neither a dying norm nor a functioning roadmap towards more effective interventions. As argued by Pinar Gozen Ercan, R2P is a moral norm that is a useful tool, but its lack of effectiveness mirrors the currently dysfunctional international intervention regime which is in need of dramatic reform. Although the first few chapters of Ercan's book may be familiar to those immersed in R2P debates, they offer a solid backdrop for the reasoning behind the argument for the need for larger UN reform. Against this, the second part of the book painstakingly traces the institutionalization of R2P and discusses some of the relevant reports and cases. However, it is the final section of the book, an examination of current proposals for change and a way forward, that is the most original and offers insightful contributions for scholars and practitioners. The United Nations, and specifically the Security Council, is notably ill-equipped to address the most difficult conflicts of our time. As the book observes, the current emphasis on prevention attempts to bypass the need for change. Ercan argues that ‘R2P lite’, or narrowing the scope of R2P and the emphasis on prevention, is unrealistic and faint-hearted (p. 148). The fundamental problem is the divided Security Council. Ercan depicts the Security Council as a ‘toddler going through its “terrible twos” and into its “horrible threes” … when the interests of the members of the Council are not affected or when there is something not to like, no one (or no grave humanitarian concern) can make it do what ought to be done’ (p. 147).