Implementation of Responsibility to Protect: Legitimacy in Question?

‘Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect norm has been guided by politicised interests
rather than human dignity and rights, bringing its legitimacy into question.’ Do you agree?
Introduction: It was realized by the international community that as a result of its letdown to
protect the civilians in the 20th-century, they were catastrophic consequences. As a result,
international community decided that humans like the Holocaust or the Cambodian genocide
(1970s) or the Rwandan genocide that took place in 1994, should not be allowed to be repeated.
The result was that the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P) emerged as a consequence of
this background amid the efforts made by the UN and the States for improving their response to
mass murders (Dahl, 1989).
The basic principle behind the R2P depends on 2 notions, sovereignty as responsibility and
human security. According to the idea of sovereignty as responsibility, it is provided that the
state sovereignty also includes responsibilities for which the government can be held accountable
for particularly this liability of the state to ensure the security of inhabitants. This means that the
government has to make sure the basic human rights, dignity and worth for every individual
(Curtin and Meijer, 2006).
In this context, the R2P provides that a state has the main liability to defend its own citizens from
grave offenses. These are genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
The three basic pillars of the R2P can be explained as follows. First of all, the state has the main
liability of protecting its people from the offenses that have been mentioned above (Dahl, 1994).
Secondly, it is the responsibility of the global community to support the states in satisfying these

responsibilities. Thirdly, when it becomes clear that a particular state has failed in protecting its
people from the above mentioned crimes, the state has quit its sovereignty and it becomes the
duty of the global society to act in appropriate and determined way and take appropriate
humanitarian, diplomatic and other steps, that have been described in chapter VI and VIII, UN
Charter and also appealed to stronger actions provided by Chapter VII. These measures comprise
the joint force use that has been sanctioned by UN (Decker, 2002).
However, a major challenge in putting into practice the R2P lies in unresolved strains that exist
among the moral duty of the state and the legal obligations of the state while dealing with the
R2P. Generally it is acknowledged by the states that there are moral essentials behind the
response to mass murders. However, the legal responsibility, which requires a response to
widespread abuse of human rights that is taking place in other autonomous nations is feeble and
approximately does not exist under the present international law (Delanty, 2005).
The moral imperative that is present for the states for preventing the repeat of such terrible
crimes is well-stated. Most of the nations are signatories to treaties that have been formed with a
view to defend the inhabitants in case of armed or non-armed clashes. According to the
international system after the Second World War, nations have tried to stay away from the
repetition of the intensity, scale and the duration of the atrocities that have to be faced by the
civilians in World War II.
Still, there are several documents produced over the years, which reaffirmed that UN and its
member States are committed to restricting the abuse inflicted on civilians. By passing the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Crime of Genocide, and also the effect of the creation of war crimes tribunal and prosecution
reveals the trend that is in favor of strengthening international humanitarian and criminal law

(Eriksen and Fossum, 2004). The widely ratified treaties also provide significant dividends that it
has been realized by the states that it is their ethical duty to avert innocent casualties. Moreover,
the United States, that has been a leader in worldwide humanitarian matters, continues with its
pledge to prevent mass murders.
For example, Pres. Obama had reaffirmed the responsibility of the US in 2011 and the atrocities,
and sanctioned the formation of interagency atrocities prevention board. It was mentioned in this
regard that the prevention of genocide and atrocities is a major national security interests and
also an ethical liability of the US. However it needs to be noted that the President had not refer to
the legal responsibility of preventing genocide and atrocities.
The R2P is based on the common understanding that it is the moral duty of the states to prevent
unjustified abuse of human rights of the civilians. On the other hand, the legal foundation for the
nations to react to mass violence is significantly feeble (Akhavan, 2009). The first document that
introduces the concept of the R2P is the report of International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty, published in 2001. The second document had been shaped in December 2004
in a discussion related with UN reform and elevated pane on threats, challenges and change
reinforced the concept in the report, A more secure world: our shared responsibility. The next
document is the UN Security Council report published in 2005. It was called Larger freedom:
towards development, security and human rights for all. It has been mentioned in this report that
security of the state's as well as the humanity cannot be divided. Therefore, collective action is
required for solving the threats that face humanity. It was also stressed upon the there is a need
for embracing their responsibility to protect and act on it whenever required. The fourth
document in this regard is the Outcome document. It was formed after a advanced meeting that