Invoking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A Realist Critique

In 2001, an international commission of academics and diplomats published a report which laid the foundations of a new doctrine in international law: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P). On the surface, what the R2P enshrines is both straightforward and moral. Extreme violence against noncombatants had been a defining characteristic of the types of ethno-nationalist and intrastate conflicts that had broken out in the 1990s. Conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo tarnished the UN s image as the preeminent international peacekeeping institution. The R2P lays out a road map aimed at stanching some of the most clear-cut abuses of human rights. However, the R2P does not represent a productive new development in the international community s protection of human rights. It is counterproductive in that it furthers opens the door to political manipulation by powerful states in the domestic affairs of other less powerful states.

Autorentext

Matthew Plain was born in British Columbia and studied political science at the University of Victoria where he obtained his BA. In 2001, he moved to Lebanon to teach. While there, he resumed his studies and completed an MA in political science at the American University of Beirut in 2012. He currently lives in Montreal.