Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and Its State Critics

Quinton-Brown, Patrick

doi:10.1163/1875984x-00503003

Cited by 22 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given this, it is not surprising that the Council members who abstained on these resolutions highlighted the issue of consent (on Darfur) and pragmatic questions around the use of force (on Libya) (UN, 2006c;UN, 2011a). Unsurprisingly, issues in relation to consent and the use of force in specific crises remain the most challenging areas to find agreement (for discussion see Morris, 2016;Quinton-Brown, 2013). Similarly, Russia explained its abstention from the resolution on small arms and light weapons in pragmatic terms -that it wanted a provision condemning the supply of arms to non-state actors (UN, 2013: 4-5).…”

Section: Libya and Beyond: 2011-2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond

Gifkins¹

2015

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that consensus on the responsibility to protect (R2P) was lost in the UN Security Council as a result of the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011. This argument assumes that there was more agreement on R2P before the Libyan intervention than there was afterwards. Yet a close examination of the Security Council's use of language on R2P shows the opposite: R2P was highly contentious within the Security Council prior to the Libyan intervention, and less so afterwards. Not only has the Council used R2P language more frequently since 2011, but also negotiating this language has become quicker and easier. To demonstrate this I compare negotiations on Darfur with deliberations during and after the Arab Spring. Resolution 1706 on Darfur was the first time the Security Council referred to R2P in a country-specific resolution -and indeed it was the only country-specific resolution to refer to R2P before 2011 -making it an apt point of comparison. Via focused analysis on how the language used in Security Council resolution evolves over time, this article demonstrates that the Council has found 'agreed language' on R2P that is acceptable to members, both for thematic resolutions and country-specific resolutions. Language on R2P in Security Council resolutions has shifted from contentious to commonplace.

show abstract

Section: Libya and Beyond: 2011-2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond

Gifkins¹

2015

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24 Some states opposed the principle on the grounds that it invited selectivity and double standards, and threatened to undermine sovereignty, or that it encouraged the use of force. 25 In recent years, use of language associated with the responsibility to protect has become more commonplace among Security Council members, leading some analysts to conclude that there is now greater support for the principle among UN member states. 26 In any case, opposed positions were not representative for Africaas a whole, the region strongly supported human protection principles.…”

Section: The Origins Of Human Protection In Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

The African Union and Human Protection: Towards a Regional Protection Regime

Crossley

2020

African Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…56 Second, these states use the concept to bolster their view that the interventionist role of the international community should be operationalized only with state consent; in this way, RtoP is invoked only in the context of Pillars I and II and the "responsibility to prevent." 57 This restriction of the meaning of RtoP explains the growing consensus and is not necessarily illustrative of a new disposition among previously oppressive states. For many states, therefore, these affirmations of RtoP appear to be strategic signals sent to gain social capital at the UN and to encourage the norm to evolve in a way that supports a preexisting preference for sovereign inviolability.…”

Section: Institutionalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Utopian in the Right Sense”: The Responsibility to Protect and the Logical Necessity of Reform

Hehir¹

2017

Ethics int. aff.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I argue that the claims made about the efficacy of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) echo the pejorative conceptions of "utopianism" advanced by E. H. Carr and Ken Booth, in two ways: by virtue of RtoP's supporter's determination to claim "progress" in spite of countervailing empirical evidence, and the exaggerated importance supporters ascribe to institutionalization, which mistakenly conflates state support with a change in state behavior and interests. I argue that RtoP's impact on the behavior of states has been, and will continue to be, limited and that while RtoP has garnered widespread support amongst states, this is due to it having been rendered largely impotent through a process of norm co-optation. While both Carr and Booth criticized a particular form of utopianism, I demonstrate that both also defended the articulation of normative prescriptions that are not immediately feasible; to this end, I conclude by suggesting a potential reform of the existing international legal order that meets Carr's preference for normative thinking that is "utopian in the right sense".

show abstract

Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and Its State Critics

Cited by 22 publications

References 2 publications

R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond

R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and beyond

The African Union and Human Protection: Towards a Regional Protection Regime

“Utopian in the Right Sense”: The Responsibility to Protect and the Logical Necessity of Reform

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About