Lesson 3 Flashcards
(17 cards)
R2P pillars
- Prevent
- Assist
- Intervene ( not only, can also be diplomatic measures and sacntions)
Human sceurity
Human security is the center for politics.
Cosmopoliatanism.
State-security
Non interference in domestic affairs.
Calculation of succes 15 and 20
R2P at 15: Success is defined by protecting populations from atrocities, preventing such crimes, and challenging impunity. The report concludes that these goals were not achieved.
R2P at 20: Success is measured across four benchmarks:
Normative progress: Increased global acceptance in UN debates and resolutions.
Institutional progress: Development of legal accountability mechanisms and national preparedness.
Preventive success: Reduction in recurring violence in certain countries.
Reactive success: Effective responses to ongoing crises, though still a work in progress.
R2P Weaknesses 15 and 20
R2P at 15: Failures stem from:
Lack of Prioritization – Competing national interests push atrocity prevention aside.
**Declining Respect for International Law ** – Weak adherence to humanitarian, human rights, and refugee laws.
Lack of Global Activism – Insufficient public pressure on governments to uphold R2P.
R2P at 20 Failures attributed to:
Major Power Rivalry – Security Council obstruction limits action.
Narrow National Interests – Policymakers prioritize self-interest over moral responsibility.
Inconsistent Implementation – Intervention in Libya but inaction in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and South Sudan.
Norm entrepenours
- The first ones were those who established the norm
- Thereafter we have those who kept using resources for the purpose of R2P
Stefan, Cristina G. (2021) “The Responsibility to Protect: Locating Norm Entrepreneurship
R2P champions
- non-western and western
- leadership, and resources to keep the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) on the international agenda.
Stefan, Cristina G. (2021) “The Responsibility to Protect: Locating Norm Entrepreneurship
Challenges to R2P champions
State prioritize their own STAPLEE interests, sometimes at the expense of international norms and obligations.
Stefan, Cristina G. (2021) “The Responsibility to Protect: Locating Norm Entrepreneurship
Non-western norm entrepenours
Small states can also emerge as r2P champions. eg. Qatar in the Groups of Friends (GoF)of R2P - one of few in the Guld and islamic world.
Stefan, Cristina G. (2021) “The Responsibility to Protect: Locating Norm Entrepreneurship
R2P inaction
Despite warnings, governments fail to act, and the ICC faces challenges as states and armed groups commit abuses with impunity.
Bellamy
Implementation Failures of R2P
Governments had failed to protects populations from strocities (Syria, chemical weapons, Myanmar, Rhakine)
Bellamy, Alex (2020) The Responsibility to Protect at 15: A Promise Unfulfilled.
Causes of R2P failure
Lack of prioritization, declining respect for international law, and pursuit of weak consensus undermine atrocity prevention.
Alex, bellamy
Roland Paris 5 Structural R2P Issues
Roland Paris – 5 Key Problems with R2P (Responsibility to Protect):
Mixed Motives
* Interventions claim to help people, but often serve political/self-interest too.
* This hurts trust and can cause backlash.
** Counterfactual Problem
- It’s hard to prove an atrocity didn’t happen because of intervention.
- People doubt the success if they can’t see clear results.
Visible Harm
* Interventions cause real damage (e.g., deaths, destruction).
* That harm is seen, while prevented harm is only imagined.
* Social media makes this worse.
End-State Problem
- Hard to leave without problems coming back.
- May require long missions or regime change.
- Goals can expand and seem dishonest.
Inconsistency
* R2P is applied unevenly—some crises get help, others don’t.
* Makes R2P seem unfair or unreliable.
Paris, Ronald
Roland Paris example of R2P failure based on 5 structural issues
Libya 2011 invation
End-State Problem
Mission shifted from protecting civilians to regime change.
No clear exit; Libya remained unstable after.
Mixed Motives
Humanitarian goal was questioned as many pushed to remove Gaddafi.
Raised doubts about true intentions.
Visible Harm
NATO strikes caused civilian deaths.
Rebel abuses and instability damaged R2P’s image
.
Inconsistency
Action in Libya, but not Syria.
Made R2P seem selective and unreliable.
Thakur an Paris key disagreements
Nature of Problems
* Paris: R2P has deep structural flaws.
* Thakur: These are common force-use dilemmas, not unique to R2P.
R2P’s Status
* Paris: R2P is at a crossroads.
* Thakur: Widely accepted in policy; most debate is academic.
Terminology
* Paris: Uses “humanitarian intervention.”
* Thakur: Opposes this term; prefers “responsibility to protect” to avoid colonial connotations.
Use of Force
* Paris: Coercive force is overlooked in R2P discussions.
* Thakur: Force is least relevant for prevention; the core issue is legitimacy, not frequency of use.
Hansel, R2P as a dangerous tool
Authoritarian use of R2P
* Used to boost domestic legitimacy and shape national identity.
* Serves strategic and geopolitical goals, like protecting kin-groups abroad.
Minority protection risks
* R2P’s focus on protecting populations can justify military force by authoritarian states under the guise of saving ethnic or religious groups.
Double standards
Authoritarian regimes highlight Western hypocrisy to justify their own interventions using humanitarian language.
Output legitimacy
* Authoritarian states use R2P to appear humanitarian, gaining legitimacy at home and abroad—even if motives are self-serving.
Case studies:
* Russia – Uses cultural/ethnic ties to justify interventions; skeptical of binding R2P norms.
Future risks
* Authoritarian “humanitarian” interventions could reshape R2P norms in unpredictable ways.
