Is the responsibility to protect (R2P) still controversial? The question is important because if R2P was no longer controversial, this would suggest that the principle is on track to consolidation as an international norm. The article assesses the impact of sixteen years of sustained R2P advocacy and its influence on arguments within the scholarly community, and discusses the impact this engagement has had on the outline and substance of the principle itself. A survey of the development of the academic debate since 2005 suggests that the 'responsibility to protect' has successfully replaced 'humanitarian intervention' in the international discourse, but that the principle remains controversial, especially beyond the policy community, particularly in the world of academe, with the humanitarian aid sector and religious organisations, as well as with states with a colonial past.

A global discourse of protection and responsibility suggests that human protection norms have gained traction. Empirically, this coincides with an observed global reduction in violence. How does this relate to regional protection practices in Africa; is there a regional protection regime? If so, how is this regime constituted, and what does it comprise? Does it shape regional protection practices, and if so, in what ways? This article describes the origins of human protection norms in Africa and outlines the institutions they have given rise to, and then assesses the role of the protection regime in shaping regional practices. An analytical framework based on regime theory, that assumes that the emergence of institutions and consistent practice indicates the emergence of a regime, is employed. An empirical survey of institutions and practices suggests the development of a regional protection regime. However, the regional structures differ from, and compete with, pre-existing international structures. While the structural prerequisites for a regional protection regime are now in place, several factors interfere with the development of the regional protection regime. The article concludes with several observations. First, the incoherence of global and regional structures results in contradictions and duplication among institutions. Second, a lack of agency of local actors, owing to limited resources and understaffing, inhibits consistent protective responses. Third, resistance by some regional agents to the norms underpinning the protection regime. However, incoherence, inconsistency, and hypocrisy are common features of regimes. Consequently, the fact that the African human protection regime is characterized by incoherence, inconsistency, and hypocrisy undermines neither its significance, nor its ability to shape practice and promote human protection.

What accounts for the inconsistency of human protection practice? This article explores the role of motive and intent in determining collective responses to humanitarian crises. The article outlines the purpose and roles of protection agentswith a focus here on states acting collectivelyas well as motives and intent. The study finds that, while human protection norms have gained traction and this is reflected in collective practice, responses to humanitarian crises are not consistently motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. Even where there is robust political will to respond to a crisis, intentions may differ among protection agents and can account for variability in the nature of collective responses. A comparative case study of international responses to the post-electoral crisis in Kenya, 2007-8, and NATO's intervention in Libya, 2011, illustrates these dynamics.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) comprises the responsibility to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. What sets R2P apart from the previously prevailing idea of humanitarian intervention is, first, an emphasis on prevention, and second, a stated preference for a multilaterally coordinated response to crises. The third and perhaps newest feature of R2P is the idea that regional organisations have an important role to play in facilitating conflict resolution and the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007 was widely viewed as the first case of ‘R2P prevention’. International mediation efforts by the African Union Panel of Eminent Personalities, under the leadership of the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and with the support of the UN and other actors, were successful at resolving the conflict without the use of coercive measures. Kenya was seen as R2P’s success story – multilaterally orchestrated action to prevent an escalation of conflict, with heavy reliance on regional actors. This paper questions to what extent this account holds true, and whether the Kenyan case really was a successful instance of ‘R2P prevention’. An analysis of the Kenyan case ultimately leads to the conclusion that the application of R2P was, in fact, unrelated to the success of the conflict mitigation efforts. The Kenyan context was one which was favourable to the success of the mediation, and it is unlikely R2P would have succeeded without these contingent factors. Nevertheless, the application of R2P to the Kenyan case served to promote R2P as a framework that emphasises non-coercive, preventative intervention facilitated through regional actors.

is a distinguished scholar and an experienced practitioner. Reviewing the Responsibility to Protect, a collection of Thakur's key essays on the responsibility to protect, with a new introduction and conclusion, draws on his academic expertise in the field of global governance and international security, and constitutes an insider's account of advocacy for norms associated with the nascent human protection regime. Thakur served on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as one of its members and drafted key passages of the report that resulted from the deliberations and international consultations. The book encapsulates his thinking and paints a vivid picture of his perspective on the principle and central issues of implementation. Taken together, the essays convey his sustained engagement with three central themes: protection responsibilities, and their implementation; collective responses and international norms; and relations between core and periphery, between states of the global North, and those of the global South.