Advertisement

Critiques and Critics of R2P

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)

Abstract

Since its emergence as a bold idea in the ICISS report of 2001 and subsequently adopted by the UN at the 2005 World Summit, R2P has remained deeply controversial for its inherent support of the doctrine of international humanitarian intervention, notwithstanding critical differences between the concept of humanitarian intervention and R2P. Indeed, despite the UN embrace, R2P has not gone very far in terms of its implementation by member states. But the Libya crisis in 2011 marked R2P’s high point when for the first time, the UN invoked R2P to pass a resolution in support of international intervention in that country to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes. Yet, that intervention has not been without problems. This chapter reviews some of the critiques and critics of R2P since the outbreak of the Arab Spring.

Keywords

Humanitarian intervention Protection of civilians New humanitarianism Mass atrocity prevention (MAP) R2P-plus Preventive responsibility 

References

  1. Bellamy, A. (2006). Whither the responsibility to protect? humanitarian intervention and the 2005 world summit. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(2), 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breakey, H. (2011). The responsibility to protect and the protection of civilians in armed conflicts: Review and analysis. Institute for Ethics: Governance and Law, Griffith University.Google Scholar
  3. Caballero-Anthony, M., Chng, B. (2009). Cyclones and humanitarian crises cyclones and humanitarian crises: Pushing the limits of R2P in southeast Asia, Global Responsibility to Protect, 1(2), 135–155(21).Google Scholar
  4. Evans, G. (2012d). R2P and RWP after Libya and Syria. Gareth Evans blog. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech485.html
  5. GCR2P (2012). R2P Frequently asked questions. Google Scholar
  6. Glover, N. (2011). A Critique of the theory and practice of R2P. e-International Relations blog.Google Scholar
  7. Hehir, A. (2012a). The Responsibility to Protect. Palgrave Macmillan, New York: Rhetoric, Reality and the future of Humanitarian Intervention.Google Scholar
  8. Hehir, A. (2012b, March 14). Syria and the responsibility to protect: Rhetoric meets reality. e-International Relations. Retrieved October 12, 2012 from http://www.e-ir.info/2012/03/14/syria-and-the-responsibility-to-protect-rhetoric-meets-reality/
  9. Homans, C. (2011, October 10). Responsibility to Protect: A Short History. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  10. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  11. Kuperman, A. J. (2004). Humanitarian hazard. Harvard International Review, 26(1).Google Scholar
  12. Madsen, W. (2011). The Obama Doctrine: Imperialism masked as humanitarian interventionism, Strategic Culture Foundation, Strategic-Culture.org. Google Scholar
  13. Thakur, R. (2010). Law, legitimacy and United Nations. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 11, 1–26 (1 May).Google Scholar
  14. Welsh, J. M. (2010). Implementing the responsibility to protect: Where expectations meet reality. Ethics and International Relations. 24(4), 415–430.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations