The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has become a prominent feature in international debates about preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities. Since its adoption in 2005, it has been discussed in relation to a dozen major crises and been the subject of discussion at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. This article takes stock of the past five years and examines three questions about RtoP: What is its function? Is it a norm, and, if so, what sort? And what contribution has it made to the prevention of atrocities and protection of vulnerable populations? In relation to the first, it argues that RtoP is commonly conceptualized as fulfilling one of two functions (a framework for a policy agenda and a speech-act meant to generate the will to intervene), but that these two functions are incompatible. In relation to the second question, it argues that RtoP is best thought of as two sets of norms relating to the responsibilities of states to their own populations and international responsibilities. The first set are well defined and established, the second though are indeterminate and lack compliance-pull, limiting the extent to which RtoP can serve as a catalyst for action. This, the article argues, is reflected in RtoP's track record thus far. RtoP has failed to generate additional political will in response to atrocity crimes but it has proven useful as both a diplomatic tool and as a policy lens.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2010 (24.2) • Feature
The Paradox of Partnership: Assessing New Forms of NGO Advocacy on Labor Rights
Labor rights public-private partnerships are an important and growing phenomenon in corporate governance, even while they are sometimes used instrumentally by business for reputational reasons, ...
Summer 2010 (24.2) • Review
Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification Edited by Henry Shue and David Rodin
Surveying a variety of perspectives on the uses and limits of preemption, this edited volume coalesces around three key themes: differences in just war terminology ...
Summer 2010 (24.2) • Review
The Gender of Reparations: Unsettling Sexual Hierarchies While Redressing Human Rights Violations Edited by Ruth Rubio-Marin
This edited collection provides a gender-sensitive analysis of reparations programs in transitional and postconflict societies, examining the gendered nature of violence during armed conflict and ...