The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade

Abstract

It is early for definitive assessments of RtoP's future as a policy instrument. Like a maturing child, we know more about its talents and aptitudes than about how they will be nurtured or stunted in the years ahead. The generally positive dialogue in the General Assembly in July 2011 suggests that the Member States understand the difference between a principle and the tactics to implement it. Building on conceptual and political progress, the United Nations is applying RtoP perspectives to a growing number of situations. In five of these, it appears to have helped save lives. Big challenges and uncertainties lie ahead, however. Perceptions of RtoP's political clout are proving to be a mixed blessing, while questions of selectivity, sovereignty, and possible misuse remain. Five near-term priorities are identified.

Soberania e responsabilidade internacional humanitária: avaliando o processo de ajuste normativo no âmbito da ONU

“…(menos de quatro anos da sua publicação até a institucionalização), é notório. Para Luck (2011), não obstante essa significativa velocidade, é preciso considerar o contexto existente hoje. Se se comparar a evolução da R2P com a emergência de outras normas voltadas à proteção dos direitos humanos em meados do século passado, tem de se levar em consideração que há na atualidade um ambiente muito mais favorável.…”

The limits of sovereignty as responsibility

“…It is worth noting that these reconsiderations of the responsibility to protect offer two different visions of the principle. The efforts to develop criteria for military intervention suggest that the responsibility to protect is “special and exceptional” while the effort to emphasize the responsibility to protect's broader implications for realizing international human rights’ guarantees indicates that it is “routine and non‐threatening” (Luck, , p. 12). On the international stage it has been celebrated as “narrow and deep” because it focuses attention on the four crimes and emphasizes prevention, reaction, and rebuilding (UN General Assembly, ).…”

Is There a Duty to Intervene? Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

“…There is debate surrounding whether the RtoP has been politically beneficial (e.g. see Hehir ; Luck ), but it does seem that it has had some positive effects on tackling mass atrocities, particularly in their prevention (see Bellamy ). But, although politically expedient, it might be argued that there are some underlying philosophical problems with the doctrine.…”

“…But, although politically expedient, it might be argued that there are some underlying philosophical problems with the doctrine. For arguably good pragmatic reasons (see Luck ), the RtoP doctrine now focuses only on certain violations of human rights and in particular the four crimes listed above. Some (e.g.…”