The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On

TLDR

The Responsibility to Protect has emerged as a key concept in international discussions on preventing genocide and mass atrocities, being debated at the UN and in relation to major crises since its 2005 adoption. This article reviews the past five years of RtoP, addressing its function, normative status, and contribution to atrocity prevention and protection of vulnerable populations. The analysis finds that RtoP is framed as two incompatible functions—a policy agenda and a speech act—and best understood as two sets of norms, with the international set being indeterminate and lacking compliance pull, which explains its limited political impact despite its usefulness as a diplomatic tool and policy lens.

Abstract

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.