International relations scholars generally argue that norm-building requires a number of successful cases. This essay, however, is about three concrete examples when virtually everyone-except for the state citing it-disputes the legitimacy of applying the emerging norm of the responsibility-to-protect (R2P). Misrepresentations of humanitarian intentions can be disingenuous and geopolitically driven, as was the case for the US and UK war in Iraq and the Russian claim to protect South Ossetians, or disinterested but wrong, as was the French invocation of R2P for Burma. These cases suggest that misuses can advance norms through contestation and conceptual clarification. Because contestation prompts debates, denial, and tactical concessions on the norm in question, it is insightful to compare and contrast R2P's development against the early stages of two theoretical models that deal most explicitly with contestation: the ''spiral'' of human rights change and the ''cascade'' of norm development.

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.

No abstract

Abstract.In recent years, the question of authorization for the use of force for humanitarian purposes has become more contentious than ever. Participants on both sides of the debate, namely those rejecting any exception to the requirement for UN authorization and the proponents of surpassing this in cases of exceptional humanitarian emergencies, do not seem to have reached any consensus. This article examines these opposing arguments, their legal interpretations, and tests the theoretical assumptions against state practice through a review of the record of humanitarian interventions since the 1990s. The final purpose is to assess two of the most promising alternatives for authorization: the UN and regional organizations. This analysis suggests some implications of the debate for the perception of the UN role in authorizing interventions, in addition to determining the need for alternative mechanisms to authorize interventions for humanitarian purposes.Résumé.Dans les dernières années, la question de l'autorisation du recours à la force dans des missions à but humanitaire est devenu un sujet particulièrement contesté de l'actualité. Les participants aux deux côtés du débat, ceux qui rejettent toute exception à l'autorisation préalable des Nations Unies et ceux qui proposent de court-circuiter l'ONU dans des situations humanitaires d'une urgence exceptionnelle seulement, ne semblent pas pourvoir atteindre de consensus. Cet article examime ces deux vues opposées et leurs interprétations juridiques et met leurs hypothèses théoriques à l'épreuve de la pratique en considérant les missions humanitaires entreprises depuis 1990. Le but ultime consiste à évaluer deux des alternatives d'autorisation les plus prometteuses : celle des Nations Unies et celle d'organisations régionales. Cette analyse suggère certaines implications du débat quant à la perception du rôle des Nations Unies dans le processus d'autorisation des interventions et révèle, d'autre part, le besoin de mécanismes nouveaux pour autoriser ces missions humanitaires.