The Russian Stand on the Responsibility to Protect: Does Strategic Culture Matter?

Dogachan Dagi

doi:10.1177/2347797020962667

Abstract

Though Russia has approved the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) in the UN platforms it has often been placed rightly in the ‘sceptics group’ of states that are not at ease with the premises and practices of R2P. What is the basis of the Russian discontent? This article suggests the relevance of strategic culture in explaining the Russian position on R2P. It is based on the assertion that, in addition to humanitarian and moral aspects, responding to mass atrocities within the doctrine of R2P takes place in a context of security considerations since, in severe cases, it involves, among others, a military component under a UN Security Council mandate. As such the use of force, approving or disapproving, it is all related to the realm of security even if the motive and objective may be humanitarian. In the security domain, this article argues that Russian strategic culture, in interaction with its national identity, historical experiences and prevailing narratives, forms a loose code of conduct and a context within which strategic decisions concerning the use of force in responding to a humanitarian crisis are made. It is, thus, concluded that Russian strategic culture by constraining decision-makers, defining appropriate behaviour and reflecting insecurities and aspirations explains Russia’s approach to R2P’s normative propositions, legal standing and implementation in practice.

Highlights

The post-Cold War cases of intervention in humanitarian crises, even if driven by moral concerns, were put into a legal cloth by arguing that such crises posed a threat to international peace and security
This article argues that Russian strategic culture, in interaction with its national identity, historical experiences and prevailing narratives, forms a loose code of conduct and a context within which strategic decisions concerning the use of force in responding to a humanitarian crisis are made
The Russian position has evolved arguing that the adaption of R2P as a norm would result in weakening state sovereignty, undermine international order and enhance the dominant position of the West with significant damages on Russian national interest

Summary

Introduction

The post-Cold War cases of intervention in humanitarian crises, even if driven by moral concerns, were put into a legal cloth by arguing that such crises posed a threat to international peace and security. This article, inspired by constructivist studies in international relations, argues for the relevance of Russia’s strategic culture, a thoroughly ignored standpoint in the literature, in explaining the critical position of Russia on R2P, a concept which is increasingly viewed from a security perspective by the Russian policy makers.

Results

Conclusion