The responsibility to protect doctrine – Coherent after all: A reply to Friberg-Fernros and Brommesson

Abstract

In a recent International Politics article, Henrik Friberg-Fernros and Douglas Brommesson argue that the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, as it was originally introduced in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, is incoherent. More specifically, they contend that there is a fundamental conflict between the implications of R2P and the six criteria the ICISS sets out to evaluate whether an intervention is justified. This article argues that these assertions are based on a misconception of how the criteria for justified intervention are interpreted in the ICISS report. Building on recent arguments from just war theory, I argue that three of these criteria do not stipulate when it is permitted to intervene, but rather what is permitted in an intervention. Subsequently, I demonstrate that in such an application, these criteria are not incompatible with the R2P.