A conceptual safari: Africa and R2P

Abstract

Abstract:The Responsibility to Protect is a new human security paradigm that re-conceptualizes state sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right. Its seminal endorsement by the 2005 World Summit has however not consolidated the intellectual parameters of the norm. Neither has it succeeded in galvanizing R2P's doctrinal development; hence the January 2009 appeal by the UN secretary-general for the international community to operationalize R2P at the doctrinal level, in addition to at institutional and policy levels. R2P represents a critical stage in the debate on intervention for human protection purposes, but its key concepts require more exploration. Africa is a uniquely placed stakeholder in R2P on account of its disproportionate share of humanitarian crises and because Africans have played key roles in conceptualizing the norm. The continent should therefore not just off er an arena for, but indeed take the lead in, the conceptual journey that R2P's doctrinal development requires.

The responsibility to protect online: Lessons from R2P and the politics of Western‐Centricity in online harms regulation

“…Within this context, criticism towards Western‐centricity focuses on decision‐making processes surrounding intervention. Critics argue that Western‐centricity can be evidenced in the decision to intervene, the actors who make the decision to use force, when force is used and against whom (Spies & Dzimiri, 2011, p. 33). These decision‐making processes are perceived by some as an exercise in the strong‐arming of states who are reluctant to use force from powers willing to intervene (Magu, 2021).…”

“…The principles were promising yet controversial. The execution of R2P has often been described as an exercise in the political strong arming of states with opposing views, resulting in a stalemate, or inaction during a crisis, and diplomatic tensions (Spies & Dzimiri, 2011, p. 33). Importantly, questions continue to arise regarding the true intent of the R2P, whether it embodies genuine desire to protect people from harm or is in reality a Western‐centric modality for enforcing conformity among states globally (Rotmann et al, 2014, p. 361).…”

Normative coherence for development: What relevance for responsive regionalism?

“…Some norms, such as human rights, have emerged from the bottom‐up through partnerships between governmental and non‐governmental actors (Korey, 1998). Other norms, such as responsibility to protect (Spies & Dzimiri, 2011), have been forwarded by specialists who identify a governance need requiring problem‐based solutions. Unlike laws, norms do not formally punish violators but they can be even more powerful than laws when they are characterized by widespread legitimacy (Nye, 2005).…”

Libya and Criteria for Humanitarian Intervention

“…From this, it follows that African states should express interest in the development of international norms on intervention. Some might claim the Responsibility to Protect is a Trojan horse; but there are many reasons that show Africans are not only interested in the topic, but have taken active steps connected to it and have participated in the debate (Spies, Dzimiri 2011). Also noteworthy is that polls say the majority of average Africans have a favourable view of military intervention when it is intended to prevent human rights abuses (Spies, Dzimiri 2011).…”