Explaining inconsistency: Motive, intent, and the practice of human protection

Abstract

ABSTRACT What accounts for the inconsistency of human protection practice? This article explores the role of motive and intent in determining collective responses to humanitarian crises. The article outlines the purpose and roles of protection agents – with a focus here on states acting collectively – as well as motives and intent. The study finds that, while human protection norms have gained traction and this is reflected in collective practice, responses to humanitarian crises are not consistently motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. Even where there is robust political will to respond to a crisis, intentions may differ among protection agents and can account for variability in the nature of collective responses. A comparative case study of international responses to the post-electoral crisis in Kenya, 2007–08, and NATO’s intervention in Libya, 2011, illustrates these dynamics.