Russia, the Responsibility to Protect and Intervention

Kuhrt, Natasha

doi:10.1057/9781137364401.0012

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…101 Russia has tried to misuse R2P against Georgia in the past, tolerated Security Council authorization of a NATO-led R2P operation in Libya, but stoutly resisted efforts to authorize any robust resolution for dealing with the Syrian crisis. 102 Given its rising global profile and growing regional assertiveness, China's views on global rules, intervention and R2P are drawing particular attention. 103 Notions of responsibility and the corollary concept of responsible governance have deep roots in Chinese traditions of statecraft and corresponding visions of world order, 104 suggesting that 'responsible protection' 105 speaks to Chinese political thought and could anchor its growing engagement with global governance.…”

Section: Major and Emerging Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Responsibility to Protect at 15

Thakur

2016

International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the fifteen years since the publication of the report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, there has been a burgeoning literature on all aspects of R2P. This review article focuses on five issues. First, it revisits the shift from ‘humanitarian intervention’ to R2P as the key innovation in 2001, highlighting the political, conceptual, normative, procedural and operational differences between the two. Second, it examines the state of knowledge regarding the causes of atrocities; the institutional vulnerabilities and points of resilience; the pathways from simmering animosities to mass killings; the indicators and precursors; and the most effective preventive and response mechanisms. Third, it reviews the unsatisfactory state of R2P implementation. Fourth, it discusses the main R2P actors, from international organizations and key groups of states to individuals. Finally, it addresses the continuing scepticism about R2P, in that it does not resolve all the dilemmas of how outsiders can provide timely, decisive and effective assistance to any group in need of protection.

show abstract

Section: Major and Emerging Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Responsibility to Protect at 15

Thakur

2016

International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, the language used by the Russian politicians to justify their intervention in Georgia in 2008 (Allison, 2013, pp. 156 and 212), the Crimean annexation in 2014 and the ongoing Donbass war in Eastern Ukraine Crimea were very similar to the arguments put forward by the Western coalition to excuse the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Kuhrt, 2015, p. 104).…”

Section: Russian Exceptionalismmentioning

confidence: 66%

The Russian Stand on the Responsibility to Protect: Does Strategic Culture Matter?

Dagi

2020

Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though Russia has approved the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) in the UN platforms it has often been placed rightly in the ‘sceptics group’ of states that are not at ease with the premises and practices of R2P. What is the basis of the Russian discontent? This article suggests the relevance of strategic culture in explaining the Russian position on R2P. It is based on the assertion that, in addition to humanitarian and moral aspects, responding to mass atrocities within the doctrine of R2P takes place in a context of security considerations since, in severe cases, it involves, among others, a military component under a UN Security Council mandate. As such the use of force, approving or disapproving, it is all related to the realm of security even if the motive and objective may be humanitarian. In the security domain, this article argues that Russian strategic culture, in interaction with its national identity, historical experiences and prevailing narratives, forms a loose code of conduct and a context within which strategic decisions concerning the use of force in responding to a humanitarian crisis are made. It is, thus, concluded that Russian strategic culture by constraining decision-makers, defining appropriate behaviour and reflecting insecurities and aspirations explains Russia’s approach to R2P’s normative propositions, legal standing and implementation in practice.

show abstract

“…By endorsing a statist interpretation of sovereign prerogatives, the need for consensus on the part of the host state -a crucial issue for humanitarian interventions throughout the 20 th century, even under Chapter VII -has become a major area of disagreement about the R2P. The issue of consensus is particularly apparent in the formulation of the Third Pillar as 'decisive timely response' (Kuhrt 2015). Russia's understanding of the inviolability of sovereignty as built into the San Francisco Charter is read as a principle of the constitutional order derived from the document (Allison 2013; Averre and Davies 2015), which is based on a 'restricted' view that does not allow the reformulation of sovereignty in the course of novel intervention doctrines (Kuhrt 2015).…”

Section: Brazil and Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issue of consensus is particularly apparent in the formulation of the Third Pillar as 'decisive timely response' (Kuhrt 2015). Russia's understanding of the inviolability of sovereignty as built into the San Francisco Charter is read as a principle of the constitutional order derived from the document (Allison 2013; Averre and Davies 2015), which is based on a 'restricted' view that does not allow the reformulation of sovereignty in the course of novel intervention doctrines (Kuhrt 2015). It does recognise the importance of preventing atrocities as a key element of the international security agenda, but opposes the use of force as means of exerting external influence over other countries (Baranovsky and Mateiko 2016).…”

Section: Brazil and Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Protection or Interference? The Legitimacy of Contemporary Humanitarian Interventions and the Engagement of Nonhegemonic Powers

Carvalho

Lima

2020

Contexto int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we use the notion of legitimacy to analyse shifts in global humanitarian interventions since the 1990s, culminating in the contested adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework under the United Nationsumbrella in 2005. We assess how this important shift was disputed with narratives of protection and interference, and argue that the engagement of nonhegemonic actors (specifically Brazil and Russia) with the scope of humanitarian protection has influenced the substantive legitimacy of this global governance issue over the past three decades by creating a norm-making process in which the fundamental features of humanitarianism have been tested and challenged.

show abstract

Russia, the Responsibility to Protect and Intervention

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Responsibility to Protect at 15

The Responsibility to Protect at 15

The Russian Stand on the Responsibility to Protect: Does Strategic Culture Matter?

Protection or Interference? The Legitimacy of Contemporary Humanitarian Interventions and the Engagement of Nonhegemonic Powers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About