Is a European Practice of Mass Atrocity Prevention Emerging? The European Union, Responsibility to Protect and the 2011 Libya Crisis

Abstract

Observers have classified the European Union (EU) as reluctant in its implementation of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) (Task Force on the EU Prevention of Mass Atrocities, 2013). This contribution revisits that argument by employing a more nuanced interpretation of norm implementation than the binary conceptualisation typically applied. By appraising EU reactions to the 2011 Libyan crisis, we investigate whether a "European practice of mass atrocity prevention" is emerging and if so how this relates-or not-to R2P. We do this by investigating EU practices seeking to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity-paying particular attention to the three pillars and four policy areas included in the R2P framework (ICISS, 2001). Our review of EU responses to Libya seeks to unveil whether and if so how EU practice related to mass atrocity prevention in that country rejected, adopted or indeed adapted R2P. The enquiry appraises both how R2P mattered to the EU response and how the Libya crisis affected the Union's approach to mass atrocity prevention and within it R2P. In this way, the study asks how norms can change practice, but also how practice can change norms. As such, our focus is on the inter-relationship between principles and practices of protection.

Shame on EU? Europe, RtoP, and the Politics of Refugee Protection

“…29 Put in constructivist terms, the EU has accepted but not yet internalized RtoP as an emerging norm. 30 Scholars have offered many reasons for this apparent failure-from a lack of coordination, clear strategy, and political will to commit the necessary means for protecting people outside its borders, 31 to a disagreement between the strategic cultures of influential member states. 32 It is not my concern to explain the EU's ambivalence with respect to RtoP.…”

Regional Organizations and Responsibility to Protect: Normative Reframing or Normative Change?

“…Recent scholarship has demonstrated that regional normative operationalization of RtoP is following a process of "norm localization" where RtoP is becoming regionalized, adopting localized adaptations through its operationalization in specific contexts (De Franco & Peen Rodt, 2015;Dembinski & Schott, 2014;Seaman, 2015). As De Franco and Peen Rodt (2015) argue, the institutional implementation that occurs once an organization has formally accepted a norm "can become a field of contestation and explain why norms are sometimes understood differently across or indeed within international organizations" (p. 46). The process of developing formal policy and legal mechanisms, or "implementing" the norm, creates standards of behavior that facilitate assessments of compliance (see Betts & Orchard, 2014;De Franco & Peen Rodt, 2015).…”

“…As De Franco and Peen Rodt (2015) argue, the institutional implementation that occurs once an organization has formally accepted a norm "can become a field of contestation and explain why norms are sometimes understood differently across or indeed within international organizations" (p. 46). The process of developing formal policy and legal mechanisms, or "implementing" the norm, creates standards of behavior that facilitate assessments of compliance (see Betts & Orchard, 2014;De Franco & Peen Rodt, 2015). Moving beyond tracing the political discourse or policy development of RtoP, recent scholarship has attempted to begin addressing its "operational implementation" or reactive practices defined by De Franco and Peen Rodt as "the norm's mainstreaming into existing policies and resource allocation" (2015, p. 46).…”

“…The Study group also recommended that a "Human Security Response Force" composed of 15,000 men and women drawn from both civilian and military institutions be created, as well as "A new legal framework to govern both the decision to intervene and operations on the ground" (Kaldor et al, 2004, Executive Summary). The Barcelona Report greatly influenced the ways in which human security ideas were more com-prehensively incorporated into the 2008 European Security Strategy (ESS) and within the European Commission, including on such issues human rights protection, responses to human trafficking, and nuclear nonproliferation (See De Franco & Peen Rodt, 2015;Martin & Owen, 2010).…”

“…Additionally, the connection between these broad-based humanfocused security activities and RtoP is decidedly absent from the EU's foreign and security policy mandates, including those that have adapted to a core human security doctrine. The EU has articulated its support for the UN's 2005 WSOD RtoP articulation, reifying the central role of the state to protect its citizens, however, it has remained extremely reluctant to operationalize the norm itself, largely owing to internal political divergences on how or whether to proceed on the implementation of RtoP (De Franco & Peen Rodt, 2015). Dembinski and Schott (2014) argue that while the EU has accepted the UN's approach on RtoP, it has shied away from the military intervention aspects outlined in pillar III, choosing instead to focus on its reputation as a humanitarian organization working towards preventive and rebuilding capacities.…”