The Connection and Distinction Between Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention under International Law

Abstract

This paper explores the connection and distinction between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention within the framework of international law. R2P emphasizes limited international intervention in cases of severe human rights violations, while humanitarian intervention focuses on using coercive means to safeguard human well-being during crises and conflicts. Through case studies, we observe diverse applications and outcomes of R2P and humanitarian intervention in past international affairs, reflecting global community stances on human rights protection and maintaining global security. The paper also reveals challenges and controversies in the practical implementation of these concepts. Key findings of are follow. R2P emphasizes preventive measures, highlighting the importance of taking action before a human rights crisis escalates into a broader humanitarian crisis, with humanitarian intervention serving as a means to implement R2P. R2P provides a robust legal and ethical foundation for humanitarian intervention, integrating widely recognized legal and ethical principles into international consensus, ensuring the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention in specific contexts. R2P emphasizes multilateral decision-making and consultation in the decision-making process, minimizing controversies associated with unilateral actions and garnering broad international support for intervention efforts. In practice, R2P and humanitarian intervention complement each other, constituting essential tools for the international community to uphold human values and protect victims from widespread atrocities. These research findings lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive understanding and improvement of the principles of R2P and humanitarian intervention.