“Responsibility to Protect” and the BRICS: A Decade after the Intervention in Libya

Abstract

Abstract “Responsibility to protect” (R2P) emerged as a powerful moral and political norm in 2001 signaling a shift away from traditional state sovereignty to human sovereignty. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 2011 R2P intervention in Libya, however, created controversies giving rise to sharp differences between the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the West over this new humanitarian norm. Major BRICS states officially support R2P to protect humans from mass atrocities but oppose military actions to implement it. This article examines the question why the BRICS states are resistant to R2P military interventions to protect humans at grave risk. In contrast to the general view that sovereignty exclusively lies at the heart of BRICS’ opposition to R2P, this article contends that, in addition to concerns for sovereignty, BRICS’ opposition to R2P military interventions is more accurately explained by the four interrelated factors of ideological rift between BRICS and the West, colonial domination of the Global South by the West, controversies over NATO's Libya episode, and the recent economic rise of the BRICS states. The article concludes that R2P, caught in the crossfires of West versus BRICS’ differing positions, portends little hope for its practical application in future.