Abstract
In our article entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect – An incoherent Doctrine?’ we claimed that R2P in the version proposed by the ICISS is incoherent. We argued that the ICISS-report used the criteria of right intention, proportionality and legitimate authority to determine when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory and we continued by arguing that this cannot be done in a coherent manner. In his reply to our article Tim Haesebrouck refutes our argument by claiming that the ICISS differentiates between criteria governing when a humanitarian intervention is obligatory from criteria governing what is permitted in an obligatory intervention and thereby avoid being incoherent. In this closing reply we show through an analysis of the report that ICISS does indeed differentiate between the criteria, but not in order to determine what is obligatory or permitted. Hence, our conclusion regarding the incoherence is not refuted by Haesebrouck.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brommesson, D. (2015) Medieval world society meets R2P: Moral and legal personality in thomas aquinas. In: H. Enroth and D. Brommesson (eds.) Global Communities – Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchanges. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brunnee, J. and Toope, S.T. (2006) Norms, institutions and UN reform: The responsibility to protect. Journal of International Law and International Relations 2 (1): 121–137.
Friberg-Fernros, H. (2011) Allies in tension: Identifying and bridging the rift between R2P and just war. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3): 160–173.
Friberg Fernros, H. and Brommesson, D. (2013) The feasibility of an expanded regime on the use of force: The case of the responsibility to protect. Journal of International Relations and Development 16 (1): 138–166.
Haesebrouck, T. (2015) The responsibility to protect doctrine – Coherent after all: A reply to Friberg-Fernros and Brommesson. International Politics 52 (1): 128–137.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001) The Responsi- bility to Protect. Ottowa, CA: International Development Research Centre.
Nardin, T. (2006) International political theory and the question of justice. International Affairs 82 (2): 449–466.
Pattison, J. (2008) Whose responsibility to protect? The duties of humanitarian intervention. Journal of Military Ethics 7 (4): 262–283.
Weiss, T.G. (2006) R2P after 9/11 and the world summit. Wisconsin International Law Journal 24 (3): 741–760.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friberg-Fernros, H., Brommesson, D. The limits of the principle of charity: Why Haesebrouck is wrong after all. Int Polit 53, 277–283 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.45
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.45