Advertisement

R2P Ten Years on: Unresolved Justice Conflicts and Contestation

  • Gregor Peter HofmannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studien des Leibniz-Instituts Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung book series (SLIHSFK)

Abstract

The norm set known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) remains contested. This contestation is not only driven by intentions to challenge a western-dominated international order. Rather, it has its root in an underlying conflict of justice conceptions, in which an understanding of justice as based on entitlements of individuals collides with an understanding based on the entitlements of states. The chapter develops this argument, bringing together theoretical arguments from different strands of research. Recent constructivist scholarship on norm contestation points to pre-existent norms and normative beliefs as determining actors’ perception of the legitimacy of new international norms. The English School and empirical justice research, similarly, point to collectively held ideas of justice as motives for norm contestation. Against this background and based on process tracing, qualitative content analysis, and expert interviews, the chapter analyzes the negotiations on R2P in 2005 and compares the results with the further development of R2P within the UN General Assembly. It thus illustrates that conflicts over individual vis-à-vis statist entitlements and over procedural justice remained unresolved during the emergence of R2P in 2005 and are now hampering the further evolution and implementation of the norm.

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.Google Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2013). The R2P and norm diffusion. Towards a framework of norm circulation. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 466–479.Google Scholar
  3. Albin, A. (2001). Justice and fairness in international negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Albin, C., & Druckman, D. (2010). The role of justice in negotiation. In D. M. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of group decision and negotiation (pp. 109–119). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Ba, A. D. (2006). Who’s socializing whom? Complex engagement in Sino-ASEAN relations. The Pacific Review, 19(2), 157–179.Google Scholar
  6. Badescu, C. G., & Weiss, T. G. (2010). Misrepresenting R2P and advancing norms: An alternative spiral? International Studies Perspectives, 11(4), 354–374.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, A. (2010). The responsibility to protect—Five years on. Ethics and International Affairs, 24(2), 143–169.Google Scholar
  8. Bellamy, A. J. (2009). Responsibility to protect: The global effort to end mass atrocities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Brazil (2011). Letter dated 9 November 2011 from the permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the secretary-general. Annex: Responsibility while protecting: Elements for the development and promotion of a concept. A/66/551, S/2011/701. 9 November 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Broszies, C., & Hahn, H. (Eds.) (2010). Globale Gerechtigkeit: Schlüsseltexte zur Debatte zwischen Partikularismus und Kosmopolitismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Capie, D. (2008). Localization as resistance: The contested diffusion of small arms norms in Southeast Asia. Security Dialogue, 39(6), 637–658.Google Scholar
  13. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1998). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  14. Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization, 59(4), 801–826.Google Scholar
  15. Claes, J. (2012). Protecting civilians from mass atrocities: Meeting the challenge of R2P rejectionism. Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(1), 67–97.Google Scholar
  16. Cortell, A. P., & Davis, J. W. (2005). When norms clash: International norms, domestic practices, and Japan’s internalisation of the GATT/WTO. Review of International Studies, 31(01), 3–25.Google Scholar
  17. Daase, C. (2013). Legalizing legitimacy: A critique of the responsibility to protect as emerging norm. Die Friedens-Warte, 88(1/2), 41–62.Google Scholar
  18. Deitelhoff, N., & Zimmermann, L. (2013). Things we lost in the fire: How different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms (Vol. 18), PRIF working papers Frankfurt a. M.: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  19. Dembinski, M., & Reinold, T. (2011). Libya and the future of the responsibility to protect: African and European perspectives (Vol. 107), PRIF report Frankfurt a. M.: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  20. Deutsch, M. (2011). Justice and conflict. In P. T. Coleman (Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of morton Deutsch (pp. 95–119). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Druckman, D., & Müller, H. (2014). Introduction. Justice in security negotiations. International Negotiation, 19(3), 399–409.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, C. (2012). Stop telling us how to behave: Socialization or infantilization? International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 135–145.Google Scholar
  23. Finnemore, M. (2001). Exporting the English school? Review of International Studies, 27(3), 509–513.Google Scholar
  24. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.Google Scholar
  25. Foot, R. (2003). Introduction. In R. Foot, J. L. Gaddis, & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Garwood-Gowers, A. (2016). China’s ‘Responsible protection’ concept: Reinterpreting the responsibility to protect (R2P) and military intervention for humanitarian purposes. The Asian Journal of International Law, 6(1), 89–118.Google Scholar
  28. GCR2P (2013). UN Security Council veto reform. http://www.globalr2p.org/our_work/un_security_council_veto_reform. Accessed 26 Jan 2014.
  29. Grasso, M., & Sacchi, S. (2011). Procedural justice in international negotiations on climate change. CISEPS Research Paper (Vol. 6).Google Scholar
  30. Grobe, C. (2011). Die Sozialisierung des Homo oeconomicus—Zur Neudefinition rationalen Handelns durch die experimentelle Methode. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 52(4), 714–744.Google Scholar
  31. Hofmann, G., & Wisotzki, S. (2014). Global governance efforts in tension between humanitarian concerns and statist sovereignty rights. International Negotiation, 19(3), 487–517.Google Scholar
  32. Hurrell, A. (2003). Order and justice in international relations: What is at stake? In R. Foot, J. L. Gaddis, & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations (pp. 24–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. India (2012). Statement at the 2012 UN General Assembly informal dialogue on R2P, 5 September. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/India.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2012.
  34. Jackson, R. H. (2000). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jetschke, A., & Liese, A. (2013). The power of human rights a decade after: From Euphoria to contestation? In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance (pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Johnston, A. I. (2008). Social states: China in international institutions, 1980–2000. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ki-Moon, B. (2009). Implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, A/63/677.Google Scholar
  38. Ki-Moon, B. (2012). Address to Stanley foundation conference on the responsibility to protect ‘R2P: The next decade’: January 18, New York. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=1433#.VL-EIi63Thk. Accessed 3 March 2015.
  39. Ki-Moon, B. (2013). Responsibility to protect: State responsibility and prevention. Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, A/67/929–S/2013/399.Google Scholar
  40. Ki-Moon, B. (2014). Fulfilling our collective responsibility: International assistance and the responsibility to protect. Report of the Secretary-General. United Nations, A/68/947–S/2014/449.Google Scholar
  41. Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127.Google Scholar
  42. Lebow, R. N. (2008). A cultural theory of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lederer, E. (2006). U.N. affirms duty to defend civilians. The Washington Post, 28 April.Google Scholar
  44. Malawi/African Group (2005). Statement on behalf of the group of African states on the report of the Secretary-General (A/59/2005). A/59/PV.85, 6 April.Google Scholar
  45. Malaysia/NAM. (2005). Statement on behalf of the non-aligned movement at the informal meeting on draft World Summit Outcome Document, 21 June. http://www.un.int/malaysia/NAM/nam210605.html. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  46. Müller, H. (2013a). Agency is central. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 360–362). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  47. Müller, H. (2013b). Where it all began. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 18–31). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  48. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.) (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pakistan (2005). Statement on the report of the Secretary-General (A/59/2005). A/59/PV.86, 6 April.Google Scholar
  50. Panke, D., & Petersohn, U. (2012). Why international norms disappear sometimes. European Journal of International Relations, 18(4), 719–742.Google Scholar
  51. Pollentine, M. (2012). Constructing the responsibility to protect. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  52. Prantl, J., & Nakano, R. (2011). Global norm diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan implement the responsibility to protect. International Relations, 25(2), 204–223.Google Scholar
  53. President of the 63rd general assembly (2008). Concept note on responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Office of the president of the General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/protect/conceptnote.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  54. Quinton-Brown, P. (2013). Mapping dissent: The responsibility to protect and its state critics. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(3), 260–282.Google Scholar
  55. Reus-Smit, C. (1997). The constitutional structure of international society and the nature of fundamental institutions. International Organization, 51(4), 555–589.Google Scholar
  56. Reus-Smit, C. (2002). Imagining society: Constructivism and the English school. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 4(3), 487–509.Google Scholar
  57. Reus-Smit, C. (2008). Constructivism and the structure of ethical reasoning. In R. Price (Ed.), Moral limit and possibility in world politics (pp. 80–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Reus-Smit, C. (2009). On rights and institutions. In C. Beitz & E. Goodin (Eds.), Global basic rights (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rosert, E., & Schirmbeck, S. (2007). Zur Erosion internationaler Normen. Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 14(2), 253–288.Google Scholar
  60. Sandholtz, W. (2009). Explaining international norm change. In W. Sandholtz & K. Stiles (Eds.), International norms and cycles of change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Serrano, M. (2011). The responsibility to protect and its critics: Explaining the consensus. Global Responsibility to Protect, 3(4), 425–437.Google Scholar
  62. South Africa (2005). Statement in the informal thematic consultations of the General Assembly on cluster III issues. 20 April. http://www.southafrica-newyork.net/speeches_pmun/view_speech.php?speech=5561068. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  63. Stone, A. (1994). What is a supranational constitution? An essay in international relations theory. The Review of Politics, 56(3), 441–474.Google Scholar
  64. Stuenkel, O. (2014). The BRICS and the future of R2P: Was Syria or Libya the exception? Global Responsibility to Protect, 6(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  65. Thakur, R. (2011). The responsibility to protect and the North-South divide. In S. Silverburg (Ed.), International law: Contemporary issues and future developments (pp. 32–48). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tyler, T. (2012). Justice theory. In P. Lange, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 344–362). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Tyler, T. & Blader, S.L. (2004). Justice and Negotiation. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 295–312). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Ulfstein, G., & Christiansen, H. F. (2013). The legality of the NATO bombing in Libya. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 62(1), 159–171.Google Scholar
  69. UN (United Nations) (2005a). Draft Outcome Document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005. Submitted by the president of the General Assembly, A/59/HLPM/CRP.1, 8 June.Google Scholar
  70. UN (2005b). 2005 World summit outcome. UNGA Res. A/RES/60/1. 16 September.Google Scholar
  71. UN (2005c). President’s draft negotiating document for the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005. Submitted by the president of the General Assembly. 6 September 2005. www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/DOD_6Sept05_rev2.pdf. Accessed 26 March 2014.
  72. UN (2005d). Revised draft Outcome Document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005. Submitted by the president of the General Assembly. A/59/HLPM/CRP.1/Rev.1, 22 July 2005.Google Scholar
  73. United States (2005e). Letter by the representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, Addressed to all delegations to the representatives of states to the United Nations, 30 August 2005. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/US_Boltonletter_R2P_30Aug05%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  74. Welch, D. A. (1993). Justice and the genesis of war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it. The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.Google Scholar
  76. Wheeler, N. J. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wheeler, N. J. (2005). A victory for common humanity: The responsibility to protect after the 2005 world summit. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2(1), 95–105.Google Scholar
  78. Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 175–193.Google Scholar
  80. Wiener, A., & Pütter, U. (2009). The quality of norms is what actors make of it: Critical constructivist research on norms. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  81. Wunderlich, C. (2013). Theoretical approaches in norm dynamics. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 20–48). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  82. Zartman, I. W. (1995). The role of justice in global security negotiations. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(6), 889–903.Google Scholar
  83. Zartman, I. W. (1997): Conflict and Order: Justice in Negotiation. International Political Science Review 18(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
  84. Zwingel, S. (2012). How do norms travel? Theorizing international women’s rights in transnational perspective. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 115–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK)Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations