Revisiting the "Responsibility to Protect" and the Use of Force

Efforts to "operationalize" the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) continue to encounter resistance from key member states. Where it matters most, among vulnerable civilian populations caught up in war, the R2P appears to be making scant difference. Rising geopolitical tensions have added to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAsian journal of peacebuilding Vol. 7; no. 2; pp. 239 - 264
Main Author Berdal, Mats
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Seoul Institute for Peace and Unification Studies 30.11.2019
Subjects
Atrocities
Councils
Genocide
Geopolitics
Humanitarianism
Massacres
Pessimism
Resistance
United States > US
Libya
Rwanda
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Efforts to "operationalize" the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) continue to encounter resistance from key member states. Where it matters most, among vulnerable civilian populations caught up in war, the R2P appears to be making scant difference. Rising geopolitical tensions have added to a growing sense of pessimism among R2P advocates. Unsurprisingly, the most contentions aspect of the R2P concept continues to revolve around the question of the use of force for humanitarian purposes. It is a subject on which states, for an admixture of historical and political reasons, remain deeply divided. Nonetheless, as a politically significant norm, the R2P has come to command growing support from states, even though the degree to which the R2P norm has been truly internalized across international society varies greatly.
ISSN:2288-2693
2288-2707
DOI:10.18588/201911.00a096