R2P Implementation Research Articles

Assessing the inaction of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Myanmar and Gaza Amidst Atrocity Crimes

The global community's failure to prevent severe human rights violations, such as the Rwanda Genocide and Yugoslavian atrocities, led to the development of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the UN in 2005. R2P aims to shield populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Despite its promise, R2P's implementation is hindered by geopolitical interests and power dynamics. To address ongoing atrocities, it is essential to strengthen international accountability mechanisms and prioritize civilian protection, ensuring such violations are neither tolerated nor inevitable.

Technology, R2P, and the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes

Abstract How should rapid developments in digital and cyber technology shape our understanding of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? And in operationalising the doctrine, how might insights on the impact of technology be integrated within key tools of R2P implementation, such as the United Nations Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes? Although prior literature has produced rich discussion of R2P as a norm, and of the politics surrounding it, analysts have paid ‘far less attention to what R2P looks like in practice’, especially with regard to advances in new technology. In this article we contend that, whether we look at the future of R2P through a normative/legal lens, or from a policy/operational perspective, grappling with the impact of technology on the practical realities of mass atrocity situations is of critical importance. To explore this argument, we empirically engage with one of the primary tools through which the implementation of R2P has benefited, the UN Framework of Analysis on Atrocity Crimes (unfaac).

India’s Crimes Against Humanity and Application of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P): Prospects and Challenges in the Case of Jammu and Kashmir

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is developed to stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Since 2005, the UN operationalized it in Libya, Yemen, Liberia, Syria, South Sudan, and Congo. However, to address India’s genocide in Kashmir, the framework is contested and politicized. So the paper test the parameters of R2P and its possible implementation. It asks (a) Why the UN has failed to operationalize R2P in Kashmir. (b) What are the underlying reasons and how realpolitik is undermining R2P implementation? It argues that India is involved in a systematic and sustained genocide of the Kashmiri population and illegal settlements of the Hindu community. Nevertheless, major powers’ geo-economics and geopolitical interests, a paradigm shift in the global order where India is placed at the heart of U.S. hedging strategy against China, and New Delhi's sustained role in regional and global politics prevent the international community from invoking R2P.

Mass Atrocities in Ethiopia and Myanmar: The Case for ‘Harm Mitigation’ in R2P Implementation

Abstract By combining insights from the three dominant perspectives in International Relations – liberalism, realism, and anti-imperialism – a novel approach is put forward, that of ‘harm mitigation’. A comparative analysis of Ethiopia and Myanmar reveals that the international community still does not possess the mechanisms to halt mass atrocities in real time. When enforcing R2P, none of the available non-coercive and coercive policy options are pragmatically or ethically unassailable. The non-coercive tools that can be labelled as ‘ethical’, such as diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and documenting atrocities, while important, are largely ineffective at stopping atrocities as they happen. Much like UN peacekeeping, these non-coercive actions are limited by targeted governments invoking the principle of state sovereignty. Meanwhile, actions that are potentially expedient, such as economic sanctions, military intervention, and supporting rebel groups, are ethically thorny. The conclusions speak to the reality that both non-intervention and intervention have the potential to cause human suffering.

An R2P Commission: A Proposal for Holding States Accountable to Their Responsibility to Protect

AbstractIn 2005, the United Nations (UN) committed to a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) against four mass-atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This was a clear commitment acknowledging that states hold responsibilities to consider the protection needs of domestic, and outside, populations. However, holding actors accountable to their R2P commitments is difficult due to the politicization of the norm and the international institutions for implementing it. The result is that the UN lacks the mechanisms for promoting R2P's successful implementation, meaning R2P breaches are all too common and that there is an urgent need to find ways to hold states accountable to their pledges. Applying transitional cosmopolitanism, which calls for an incremental approach in the pursuit of cosmopolitan solutions to contemporary global challenges, this article examines an entirely new and supplementary mechanism to assist in R2P's implementation. The article calls for the creation of an “R2P Commission.” This is a suggestion for a body composed of independent elected experts to scrutinize state practice across R2P's “three pillars.” It argues that an R2P Commission would provide an effective and feasible supplementary body to enhance R2P's implementation via determinations of where manifest R2P failures have occurred, review of international practice vis-à-vis atrocity prevention and response, and recommendations for altering practice and potential response action.

The Principle of Responsibility to Protect: Implementation Perspective in Middle East and North Africa

This thesis analyzes the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P) in theory and practice. The research includes a review of the history and development of the principle, its status as an international norm, as well as the primary criticisms against its use, including its perceived conflict with the long-standing rules of sovereignty and non-intervention. This background is followed by an examination of the application of R2P in specific crises situations of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, namely the cases of Libya, Syria, Sudan (Darfur) and South Sudan. The research focuses on an analysis of the inconsistent application of the R2P principle in these situations and why that occurs, specifically in regard to the following factors – (1) the UN Security Council’s determination of whether or not to authorize the use of force to intervene when a state is perpetrating mass atrocity crimes against its own civilians, emphasizing the role of the veto power over that decision; and (2) the involvement regional organizations and neighboring states play in the determination of how R2P will be applied and when or if forceful intervention will be utilized. The role political will plays in both factors will be examined. The latter factor will be explored through an analysis of the involvement of the Arab League in the focused studies in the MENA region. The perspective of the Arab community regarding R2P implementation is fraught with concerns about regime change, accountability, and inconsistency. To that end recommendations are suggested as to factors that may improve these issues and encourage further use of the principle by the international community and the Arab League in future situations.

The Responsibility to Protect: from promise to practice

Drawing on their combined 25 years of experience with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Alex Bellamy and Edward Luck ask the critical question: how do we move closer to implementing R2P? The two authors are uniquely positioned to reflect on both the history and practice of R2P: Bellamy is the founding director of the Asia–Pacific Centre on R2P and Luck was the United Nations' first special adviser on R2P. The book is essential reading for those who want to better understand the current state of R2P implementation and the ongoing gaps and challenges. The breadth and depth of the book are impressive, drawing on the authors' wealth of research and policy experience within think-tanks, the UN and academia more broadly. The authors begin by retelling the history of R2P––a story that has been told many times before. However, they revisit this narrative from a distance of some years and as individuals with close proximity to events as they unfolded and thus are able to tell a new version of R2P's evolution. Their historical analysis focuses on how the original mandate of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty led to an initial emphasis on questions of humanitarian intervention, as opposed to the prevention of mass atrocities. The dominance of debates on humanitarian intervention, they argue, has made R2P too UN-focused, when the most fundamental prevention activities are carried out by states. By moving beyond the UN forums, they stress the importance not only of local, regional and international actors, but also of the collaboration between them.

R2P and the Prevention of Mass Atrocities: A Child-Centric Approach

Prevention has taken centre-stage in present discussions around both United Nations reform and the r2p implementation agenda. Contemporary humanitarian crises from Myanmar to Yemen reinforce the horrendous atrocities that children face during periods of armed conflict and mass political upheaval to which the prevention agenda is geared. This article considers the atrocity prevention dimension of r2p; it describes changes in both understanding around the dynamics of political violence and strategies for targeting civilians in contemporary conflicts over the past two decades, situates children in the broader social context of mass political violence, and identifies strategies for incorporating a child-centric lens into the existing atrocity prevention toolkit. It argues that while the children and armed conflict agenda strengthens atrocity prevention efforts in relation to children’s specific experiences in violent conflict, it does not serve as an adequate proxy for a child-centric approach to atrocity prevention through both structural and targeted measures.

From Atrocity Crimes to Human Rights: Expanding the Focus of the Responsibility to Protect

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was envisaged by its authors to encompass a wide range of human rights protections. In order to gain state support for the idea of the R2P, its focus was narrowed to the protection of populations from atrocity crimes. This article challenges the ‘atrocity lens’, arguing that the restricted focus is both practically and conceptually flawed. Practically, it has failed to inspire action in situations where there were good reasons to believe that atrocities were occurring. Conceptually, it has led to a counterproductive focus in R2P implementation on conflict and on particular actors within conflict. The article therefore explores the possibilities and implications of stretching the focus of R2P back to the broader vision found within the iciss report. It concludes that there are significant potential benefits to adopting a ‘human rights lens’ if states are willing to fulfil their pillars one and two responsibilities.

R2P intervention, BRICS countries, and the no-fly zone measure in Libya

This paper adds value to ongoing academic debate on the emergence and evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm. This is achieved through the proposition that understanding the coherent position taken by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS countries) in the case of R2P implementation in Libya in 2011 is important if we are to anticipate the development of this norm. Many studies have examined R2P within this context. But few of these focused on the interventions of BRICS countries in United Nations Security Council (UNSC) debates regarding R2P implementation in Libya. Analysis of statements made by BRICS countries—as a unified political group in those debates—has revealed that they have indeed advanced a coherent position regarding the definition and implementation of the R2P norm. More particularly, this paper finds that three distinctive features have characterised this coherent position, namely: (i) any form of intervention must refrain from preferential treatment of one party over the other, (ii) military intervention may be acceptable as a last resort only in situations where all peaceful options have been fully considered, and (iii) the criterion of reasonable prospects for success of an intervention must be met if an intervention is to be supported by BRICS countries in the future.

Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support

This article examines Brazil's responsibility while protecting (RwP) initiative as an example of norm sponsorship available to nonpermanent members of the Security Council. After setting the stage with Brazil's historical engagement with intervention issues, it discusses the reasons behind the Brazilian initiative. It examines RwP's key proposals and the reactions they generated. RwP's normative implications are discussed, together with an examination of the main reasons why Brazil's sponsorship of the initiative waned following its exit from the Council. Brazil's withdrawal from sponsoring RwP highlights the need for ongoing support for initiatives that seek to revive the international community's intervention practices by tackling the basic tenets of discord over R2P's implementation.

The European Parliament’s contribution to the R2P debate: lessons from the Libyan and Syrian conflicts

The first application of the military force element of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), whose objective is to protect populations from four specified atrocities, occurred in 2011 in Libya. Since then, and in particular in the ongoing conflict in Syria, R2P has been mentioned occasionally but not applied to date. This has led to claims that its non-application is a result of the “shadow of Libya”. Over recent years, the international role of parliamentary bodies has vastly expanded, and in particular that of the European Parliament (EP) who acted as a “prime mover” for R2P over Libya in 2011. This study explains why the EP does not call for R2P implementation in the Syrian conflict. It will argue that this differentiation in fact strengthens R2P because it refers to conditions and characteristics that need to be respected if this concept is to be implemented correctly, and, more importantly, if it is to become an accepted international norm in the future.

The Responsibility to Protect at 15

In the fifteen years since the publication of the report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, there has been a burgeoning literature on all aspects of R2P. This review article focuses on five issues. First, it revisits the shift from ‘humanitarian intervention’ to R2P as the key innovation in 2001, highlighting the political, conceptual, normative, procedural and operational differences between the two. Second, it examines the state of knowledge regarding the causes of atrocities; the institutional vulnerabilities and points of resilience; the pathways from simmering animosities to mass killings; the indicators and precursors; and the most effective preventive and response mechanisms. Third, it reviews the unsatisfactory state of R2P implementation. Fourth, it discusses the main R2P actors, from international organizations and key groups of states to individuals. Finally, it addresses the continuing scepticism about R2P, in that it does not resolve all the dilemmas of how outsiders can provide timely, decisive and effective assistance to any group in need of protection.

Emerging Powers and the Operationalisation of R2P in Africa: The Role of South Africa in the UNSC

Abstract There is anxiety over the future of the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This anxiety stems from the controversial nature of the first test case of operationalisation of the ‘responsibility to react’ component of R2P carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya in 2011. The article argues that the Libyan crisis reinforced the claims of states who argue that R2P is susceptible to abuse and this has made it difficult to act in Syria. As a way forward, the paper contends that regional organisations in Africa, led by regional hegemons such as South Africa, should take the lead in the implementation of R2P on the Continent. Drawing illustrations from Libya, the author maintains that South Africa should leverage its membership of brics and other multilateral frameworks to advance the African Agenda at the United Nations Security Council particularly with reference to the operationalisation of R2P in Africa. In order to be able to do this, the paper suggests a reappraisal and recalibration of the R2P implementation framework to give emphasis to regional organisations.

Civil Society and the Responsibility to Protect

While a vast and growing literature on various aspects of responsibility to protect (R2P) exists, little attention has yet been given to the role played by civil society in the development and implementation of this doctrine. This paper aims to fill this gap. After providing a typology of civil society organisations—categorising this amorphous sphere into advocacy, operational and indigenous groups—this paper examines the contribution of civil society to the discussion surrounding the development of R2P. In particular, civil society has debated three main issues: the pros and cons of building an international coalition to promote R2P, the possibility that great powers could hijack the doctrine and the opportunity of using force during R2P implementation. As a whole, this paper argues that not only advocacy, operational and indigenous civil society organisations hold different ideas about R2P and have different strategies for its implementation but, more importantly, their approaches, strategies and actions may end up undercutting one another. This argument is explored in the case of Darfur—the first crisis many analysts have described as an R2P situation.

Protecting Civilians from Mass Atrocities: Meeting the Challenge of R2P Rejectionism

The three broad challenges that obstruct R2P’s implementation are conceptual, institutional, and political. Most scholarly work on R2P deals with the conceptual or institutional obstacles, paying insufficient attention to the political process. In this paper I analyse the motivations behind country opposition to the responsibility to protect and make recommendations to address the drivers of R2P rejectionism. A mix of underlying variables feeds this opposition, in particular experiences with state repression, mass atrocities and external interference, tactical maneuvers by UN delegations, and state revisionism. The political context for R2P implementation is not ‘a given’, but to some extent susceptible to external influence. In order to move R2P from an aspiration into an accepted norm, advocates with significant political leverage could undermine R2P opposition where possible. Neutralising rejectionism is key to obtain a stronger consensus resolution, move R2P into the normative mainstream, and increase the pressure to formulate rapid and robust responses to imminent or ongoing atrocities.

A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P

In a post-R2P world, policymakers are not only confronted by the real life challenge of mass atrocity crimes but are also faced with a variety of voices offering alternative ways for framing the problems involved. The dominance of realism in 20th century political discourse puts forward the view that states do not have a moral obligation to protect the citizens of other states. As a result, the R2P remains just another policy option, one that should only be opted for when national interests are at stake. From this perspective, the national responsibility that states have to their citizens clashes with the international responsibility to protect populations the world over from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Accordingly, this clash of responsibilities exposes a series of complexities regarding morality, power, survival, security, sovereignty, and order to name just a few. With this in mind, this paper engages with realist critiques in order to create a constructive conversation to help show areas of agreement and disagreement which will provide us with a more informed understanding of the challenges that face R2P implementation.

The African Union, the United Nations, and the Responsibility to Protect: Towards an African Intervention Doctrine

AbstractThis essay considers the R2P principle as expressed by the African Union's (AU) Constitutive Act of 2000, the United Nations (UN) World Summit's outcome document of 2005, and recent civilian protection mandates issued for peacekeeping operations by the UN Security Council. Examining how these three international mechanisms have sought to establish and operationalise the norm, the author argues that the AU should make greater efforts to bring R2P implementation into line with the UN Charter in order to secure the legitimacy of regional interventions in Africa. Reflecting on the experience of the AU Mission in Sudan between 2004 and 2007, the importance of clear mandates and sufficient capacity to the success of R2P interventions is emphasised. The use of force by peacekeepers—its feasibility and potential extent—is analysed and placed within the context of peacebuilding in the R2P continuum. The essay also argues for better coordination between the UN Security Council and the world body's Economic and Social Council, as well as with the AU's Peace and Security Council, to ensure a reliable supply of adequate peacebuilding resources to Africa and proper consideration of security and reconstruction matters.

The Responsibility To Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-Down

This article discusses the international response to the conflict in Darfur from 2003 onwards in order to explore some of the key challenges related to implementing the responsibility to protect (R2P). First, we show that the debates on R2P in connection to Darfur translated into little more substantive action than the pragmatic decision to deploy peace operations with mandates that included civilian protection, as suggested by the African Union (AU) Mission in Sudan (AMIS), and later by the hybrid UN—AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Second, we argue that the international response to Darfur illustrates three major challenges to R2P implementation. These are: political limitations inherent in the R2P framework; moral dilemmas emerging from military action; and tactical challenges, as exemplified by the struggles faced by the AU and the UN in Darfur. We conclude that the international failure to offer meaningful protection in Darfur highlights the need for continued caution and critical analysis of the ways in which R2P is conceptualized and implemented.