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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
