Why common humanity? Framing the responsibility to protect as a common response

Assessing the Responsibility to Protect’s motivational capacity: The role of humanity

“…In other words, without an acknowledgement of the moral concept of humanity, it is not possible to fully conceptualise the full harm of mass atrocity crimes, particularly in regard to those who are forced to experience and live with the consequences of such acts. Thus, as Papamichail and Partis-Jennings (2016: 87) have argued, there is a need to recognise that mass atrocity crimes have ‘a symbolic dimension as well as a practical one’; therefore, a normative understanding of humanity is key to any aspiration to ‘transcend the radically divisive and dehumanising aspirations of genocidal action’. This ultimately requires recognition of the need to separate out the meanings we place on the concept of humanity, as not simply an appeal to the imposition of universal actions of protection at the expense of the underlying political dynamics but functioning as an essential moral force for collective harm recognition during discussions of implementation.…”

“…In this sense, the recognition of a shared moral concept remains integral as without which the question of should we act in the face of mass atrocity crimes simply would not arise. Thus, ‘manifestations of self-interest and inconsistency do not necessarily detract from underlying common moral sentiment precisely because they are exposed as self-interested and inconsistent’ (Papamichail and Partis-Jennings, 2016: 94). It can therefore be argued that attempts to reduce the concept of humanity to a rhetorical cover for political self-interest significantly underplay the importance of humanity’s role in reinforcing the assumed moral wrong found within the actions of the perpetrators of atrocities and in generating a harm that can be seen to transcend traditional sovereign borders.…”