Advertisement

Sovereignty as Liability: The Security Council and R2P

  • Aidan HehirEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter argues that norms, particularly, weak regulative norms such as R2P, have limited influence in cases where actors consider that violating the norm is a matter of existential necessity. States always contend with a plurality and hierarchy of norms, which is itself subject to often sudden fluctuations. Returning to the framework outlined in Chapter  2, I argue that the distinction between R2P as a regulative and constitutive norm, therefore, has profound importance. A norm’s potency is significantly diminished if it is affirmed only to present an image to an ‘external’ audience rather than to facilitate or impel ‘internal’ change. This is particularly apposite if those states least inclined to meaningfully embrace the norm are precisely those states the norm is designed to influence. For states that have accepted R2P superficially, an internal threat of an existential gravity can quickly create an imperative to act in a manner which directly violates the affirmed R2P norm. In the absence of countervailing internalization of R2P, the imperative to violently tackle this “threat” far outweighs any perceived need to abide by R2P.

References

  1. Adams, Simon. 2015. The Responsibility to Protect: Ten Years On. OpenCanada, May 8. https://www.opencanada.org/features/the-responsibility-to-protect-10-years-on/.
  2. Adams, Simon. 2016. Statement of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the 2016 UN General Assembly Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect. September 6. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2016-gcr2p-r2p-interactive-dialogue-statement.pdf.
  3. Ayoob, Mohammed. 2002. Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty. The International Journal of Human Rights 6 (1): 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badescu, Cristina, and Thomas Weiss. 2010. Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral? International Studies Perspectives 11 (4): 354–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellamy, Alex. 2006. Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Bellamy, Alex. 2015. The Responsibility to Protect: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, Alex, and Paul Williams. 2011. The New Politics of Protection? Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs 82 (7): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellamy, Alex, and Tim Dunne. 2012. “Responsibility to Protect” on Trial—Or Assad? Ethics and International Affairs, June 6. https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2012/responsibility-to-protect-on-trial-or-assad-3/.
  9. Berman, Frank. 2007. Moral Versus Legal Legitimacy. In The Price of Peace, ed. Charles Reed and David Ryall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bolton, John. 2005. Letter to President Ping. August 30. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/US_Boltonletter_R2P_Aug05%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed July 2011.
  11. Bourantonis, Dimitri. 2007. The History and Politics of Security Council Reform. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, Adele. 2008. Reinventing Humanitarian Intervention? Two Cheers for the Responsibility to Protect. House of Commons Library Research Paper 08/55, International Affairs and Defence Section, June 17.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, Allen, and Robert Keohane. 2011. Precommitment Regimes for Intervention: Supplementing the Security Council. Ethics and International Affairs 25 (1): 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burton, Michael. 1996. Legalising the Sublegal. The Georgetown Law Journal 85: 417–454.Google Scholar
  15. Byers, Michael, and Simon Chesterman. 2003. Changing the Rules About Rules? In Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, ed. J. Holzgrefe and Robert Keohane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Caplan, Richard. 2000. Humanitarian Intervention: Which Way Forward? Ethics and International Affairs 14 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carr, Edward H. 2001. The Twenty Years Crisis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Cassese, Antonio. 2005. International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cheng, Christine. 2012. Charles Taylor Trial Highlights ICC Concerns. Al Jazeera, April 27. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/20124268513851323.html.
  20. Chesterman, Simon. 2003. Hard Cases Make Bad Law. In Just Intervention, ed. Anthony Lang. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chesterman, Simon. 2011. The Outlook for UN Reform. New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 11–55, August. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885229.
  22. China. 2017. Statement by China at the 2017 UN General Assembly Debate on R2P. New York, September 6. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2017-iid-china.pdf.
  23. Davies, Sara, and Alex Bellamy. 2014. Don’t Be Too Quick to Condemn the UN Security Council Power of Veto. The Conversation, August 12. https://theconversation.com/dont-be-too-quick-to-condemn-the-un-security-council-power-of-veto-29980.
  24. Dunne, Tim, and Katherine Gelber. 2014. Arguing Matters: The Responsibility to Protect and the Case of Libya. Global Responsibility to Protect 6 (3): 326–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, Gareth. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  26. Evans, Gareth. 2009. From an Idea to an International Norm. In Responsibility to Protect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century, ed. Richard Cooper and Juliette Kohler. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans, Gareth. 2015. Good International Citizenship. Keynote Address, Sydney University, Australia, August 27. http://gevans.org/speeches/speech580.html.
  28. Fabius, Laurent. 2013. A Call for Self-Restraint at the UN. The New York Times, October 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-call-for-self-restraint-at-the-un.html?_r=1.
  29. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organizations 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. 2006. The Practical Workings of the Law of Treaties. In International Law, ed. Malcolm Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gifkins, Jess. 2016. R2P in the UN Security Council: Darfur, Libya and Beyond. Cooperation and Conflict 51 (2): 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glanville, Luke. 2016. Does R2P Matter? Interpreting the Impact of a Norm. Cooperation and Conflict 51 (2): 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2014. Fourth Meeting of the Global Network of R2P Focal Points. http://www.globalr2p.org/our_work/global_network_of_r2p_focal_points.
  34. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2015. Restrain the Veto. www.restraintheveto.com.
  35. Hehir, Aidan. 2013. The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect. International Security 38 (1): 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hehir, Aidan. 2015. The Dog That Didn’t Bark? A Response to Dunne and Gelber’s Analysis of RtoP’s Influence on the Intervention in Libya. Global Responsibility to Protect 7 (2): 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hehir, Aidan. 2016. Assessing the Influence of the Responsibility to Protect on the UN Security Council During the Arab Spring. Cooperation and Conflict 51 (2): 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hehir, Aidan. 2017. The Lack of “Responsibility” in the Responsibility to Protect. In Moral Agency and the Politics of Responsibility, ed. Tobias Debiel, Peter Finkenbusch, and Cornelia Ulbert. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Henkin, Louis. 1990. Compliance with International Law in an Inter-State System. In Academie de droit international, Recueil des cours 1989. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  40. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  41. Kelsen, Hans. 1972. Peace Through Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kuhrt, Natasha. 2011. The Human Security Agenda After 9/11. In International Law, Security and Ethics, ed. Aidan Hehir, Natasha Kuhrt, and Andrew Mumford. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Landman, Todd. 2005. Studying Human Rights. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Loiselle, Marie-Eve. 2013. The Normative Status of the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (3): 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mearsheimer, John. 1995. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19 (3): 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mills, Kurt. 2018. Will the World Ever Be Interested in Stopping Atrocities? In Last Lectures on the Prevention and Intervention of Genocide, ed. Samuel Totten. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Morris, Justin. 2013. Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum. International Affairs 89 (5): 1265–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morris, Justin. 2017. R2P: A Long View. In Protecting Human Rights in the 21st Century, ed. Aidan Hehir and Robert Murray. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Murray, Robert W., and Aidan Hehir. 2012. Intervention in the Emerging Multipolar System: Why R2P Will Miss the Unipolar Moment. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 6 (4): 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NGO Coalition. 2014. Joint NGO Statement on the Use of the Veto. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/joint-ngo-statement-on-the-use-of-the-veto.pdf.
  51. Powers, Maggie. 2015. The Responsibility to Protect: Dead, Dying or Thriving? International Journal of Human Rights 19 (8): 1257–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ralph, Jason, and Jess Gifkins. 2015. The Purpose of United Nations Security Council Practice: Contesting Competence Claims in the Normative Context Created by the Responsibility to Protect. European Journal of International Relations 23 (3): 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reinold, Theresa. 2010. The Responsibility to Protect: Much Ado About Nothing? Review of International Studies 36 (S1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reus-Smit, Christian. 2005. Liberal Hierarchy and the License to Use Force. In Force and Legitimacy in World Politics, ed. David Armstrong, Theo Farrell, and Bice Maiguashca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rotmann, Philipp, Gerrit Kurtz, and Sarah Brockmeier. 2014. Major Powers and the Contested Evolution of a Responsibility to Protect. Conflict, Security & Development 14 (4): 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russia. 2017. Statement by Russia at the 2017 UN General Assembly Debate on R2P. New York, September 6. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2017-iid-russian-federation.pdf.
  57. Simpson, Gerry. 2004. Great Powers and Outlaw States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stahn, Carsten. 2007. Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm? American Journal of International Law 101 (1): 99–120.Google Scholar
  59. Venezuela. 2017. Statement by Venezuela at the 2017 UN General Assembly Debate on R2P. New York, September 6. http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2017-iid-venezuela-english.pdf.
  60. Weiss, Thomas. 2014. Military Humanitarianism: Syria Hasn’t Killed It. The Washington Quarterly 37 (1): 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welsh, Jennifer. 2006. Conclusion: The Evolution of Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. In Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, ed. Jennifer Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welsh, Jennifer. 2013. Norm Contestation and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wheeler, Nicholas. 2005. A Victory for Common Humanity? The Responsibility to Protect After the 2005 World Summit. Journal of International Law and International Relations 2 (1): 95–106.Google Scholar
  64. White, Nigel. 2004. The Will and Authority of the Security Council After Iraq. Leiden Journal of International Law 17 (4): 645–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations