Abstract
The efficacy of the Responsibility to Prevent suffers from two key problems; causal indeterminacy, and a dependence on the political will of states, particularly the permanent five members of the Security Council. The vast array of factors which can be cited as potentially contributing to the outbreak of conflict and atrocity crimes mitigates against the determination of definite “conflict triggers”. This does not mean prevention is impossible but does limit the efficacy of “early warning systems”. The dynamics of the “four crimes” within R2P’s purview further limits the efficacy of prevention as the decision to engage in mass atrocities is taken in response to a perceived existential crisis. This significantly limits the scope for leveraging the “internal” aspect of R2P as the decision to commit these acts is invariably born from a belief that no other option is available to the potential aggressors. Thus the specifics of atrocity crime prevention places great emphasis on the operationalisation of the external dimension of R2P, namely the role of the international community. So long as the response of the “international community” is predicated on the political will of states, however, the efficacy of prevention in these areas will be limited, as the “international” response is prey to narrowly defined national interests.
Highlights
This article argues that the Responsibility to Prevent, though vaunted as the most useful element of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), has limited potential efficacy
This latter fact leads to the second problem, namely that the Responsibility to Prevent depends upon the political will of Politics and Governance, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 85-97 states, and especially the national interests of the permanent five members of the Security Council (P5)
I demonstrate that the array of factors which can plausibly be cited as contributing to the outbreak of conflict and atrocity crimes is so vast it mitigates against the determination of definite “conflict triggers”
Summary
This article argues that the Responsibility to Prevent, though vaunted as the most useful element of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), has limited potential efficacy. The Responsibility to Prevent suffers from two key problems; first the efficacy of prevention generally is undermined by causal indeterminacy This problem is accentuated in the context of the Responsibility to Prevent due to the specifics of atrocity crimes—in terms of the conditions under which they are perpetrated—and the related mechanisms by which such acts—when in gestation—can be prevented. This, significantly limits the scope for leveraging the “internal” aspect of R2P—namely the responsibilities of the host state—as the decision to commit these acts is invariably born from a belief that no other option is available to the potential aggressors This means, that the specifics of atrocity crime prevention places great emphasis on the operationalisation of the external dimension of R2P, namely the role of the international community.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
