To sever or salvage? Disaggregating the coercive military component of the R2P

By Jamal Nabulsi 

Jamal Nabulsi is a Master of International Relations (Advanced) student at the Australian National University. He is interested primarily in the ethics of war and normative International Relations theory. His Master’s thesis is on the ethical theory around preemptive and preventive wars.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is not dead, but one of its limbs is gangrenous and in dire need of amputation to save the body from infection. This article will argue that, in light of the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, the coercive military component of R2P must be disaggregated from the body of the doctrine. This will allow for the consensus around R2P to widen, strengthening its normative force, while the debate about coercive military intervention can carry on outside of the R2P framework. This article will outline the R2P doctrine, describe its implementation in Libya and the consequences thereof, explain why proposed solutions fall short, before offering disaggregation as a solution.

The R2P was first articulated in the 2001 Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as the notion that a state’s sovereignty is contingent upon its fulfilment of its responsibility to protect its population from avoidable catastrophes, and that when a state fails to fulfil this responsibility (either through inability or unwillingness), the responsibility falls on the international community (ICISS, 2001, viii). The R2P was further clarified in the 2005 United Nations (UN) World Summit Outcome document, as well as being unanimously adopted by the UN Member States (United Nations, 2005, p.30). The 2009 Report of the UN Secretary-General on implementing R2P outlined a three-pillar strategy for implementation. Pillar one is the responsibility of states to protect their populations from the atrocities of ethnic cleansing, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Pillar two is the international community’s commitment to assist states in protecting their populations from such atrocities. Pillar three is the UN Member States’ responsibility ‘to respond collectively in a timely and decisive manner when a state is manifestly failing to provide such protection’ (United Nations, 2009, p.9). This includes non-violent measures under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, collaboration with regional organisations under Chapter VIII and/or coercive military intervention under Chapter VII (United Nations, 2009, pp.8-9). 

The 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya was a watershed moment for the R2P doctrine (Evans, 2013). It was the first time that coercive military intervention under Chapter VII was authorised by the UN Security Council against the express will of the state in question with the stated intention of protecting a population from falling victim to mass atrocities. This authorisation was granted in the context of the ‘Arab Spring’—a wave of popular, anti-authoritarian, pro-democracy demonstrations that swept the Middle East and North Africa from the end of 2010. In contrast to the relatively peaceful transitions of power that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia, the protests in Libya quickly turned violent (Glanville, 2013).

Muammar al-Qaddafi, then leader of Libya, promised to ‘show no mercy’ in crushing the ‘cockroaches’ protesting his rule (as quoted in Glanville, 2013, p.333). Such dehumanising language, echoing that used by genocidaires prior to the Rwandan genocide, was a key factor in spurring the Security Council into action (Hehir, 2013, p.138). Another key factor was the condemnation of the Qaddafi regime’s human rights violations by relevant regional organisations (African Union, 2011), and subsequent calls by some of them to establish a no-fly zone in Libya (Council of the League of Arab States, 2011; Glanville, 2013, p.334).

On February 26, 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970, which condemned the Qaddafi regime’s violence against civilians (invoking Libya’s responsibility to protect its citizens) and imposed an arms embargo on Libya, among other measures (United Nations Security Council, 2011a). Subsequently, on March 17, 2011, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 which, most notably, implicitly authorised coercive military intervention in Libya through the enforcement of a no-fly zone, aimed at preventing the Qaddafi regime’s air force from attacking Libyan civilians (United Nations Security Council, 2011b). This resolution was passed by a 10-0 vote, with China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India abstaining (Silander, 2013, p.269). The reservations expressed by these countries were in relation to the dubious effectiveness of coercive intervention and the lack of specificity regarding the exact form that the military action would take (Odeyemi, 2016, pp.11-12).

Upon NATO’s implementation of Resolution 1973, these concerns were borne out with disastrous consequences for the Libyan people. Rather than focussing strictly on protecting the population, the NATO mandate quickly evolved to include overthrowing the Qaddafi regime (Bachman, 2015, p.56). This was justified on the grounds of its necessity for protecting Libyans in the long-run, however, Kuperman (2013) convincingly argues that regime change was sought as an end in itself, not as a means to the end of protecting the population. NATO forces engaged in actions that were inconsistent with protecting the population but that sought regime change, such as attacking Qaddafi regime forces that were in retreat and failing to pursue offered ceasefires (Kuperman, 2013, pp.113-115).

NATO airstrikes in Libya were markedly discriminatory, with independent estimates of civilian casualties ranging from 55 (Amnesty International, 2012) to 72 (Human Rights Watch, 2012), resulting from 9,700 strike sorties. However, NATO support for Libyan rebel groups facilitated the incidence of countless war crimes and crimes against humanity. During the conflict, for instance, it has been reported that the NATO-backed rebels were committing similar human rights violations to those perpetrated by the Qaddafi regime (Bachman, 2015, pp.61-62).

But the most egregious crimes by the rebels have been committed since NATO evacuated, all but shirking their responsibility to properly see through the transition to democratic government and to help in rebuilding Libya. These crimes include the racially-targeted expulsion of Tawergha’s 30,000 inhabitants (Human Rights Watch, 2011a), the summary execution of Qaddafi and widespread reprisal killings and torture (Human Rights Watch, 2011b). The first elected Libyan Prime Minister lasted one month, before being removed with a vote of no confidence (Bachman, 2015, pp.63-64). Today, Libya remains deeply divided as competing militia groups continue to fight for control over the country amidst widespread lawlessness and economic collapse (Amnesty International, 2017, p.233). The ongoing human suffering that this situation entails is incalculable. 

Would Libya have been better off without a NATO-led intervention? According to Kuperman’s (2013, p.123) plausible counterfactual, the NATO-led intervention magnified the death toll by seven to ten times. Regardless of the accuracy of this estimate, the NATO-led intervention evidently led to untold human suffering, and its ramifications continue to endanger the lives of countless Libyans. 

The disastrous outcome of the NATO-led military intervention in Libya has inflamed the controversy around the coercive use of military force to achieve the humanitarian goals of R2P. This has, in turn, damaged the international support for the R2P doctrine as a whole. The Libyan intervention drew sharp criticism from the BRICS states—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—among others. Their foremost concerns were that NATO grossly overstepped its mandate (outlined in Resolution 1973) by pursuing regime change, that disproportionate force was used, that opportunities for political dialogue and peaceful settlement were ignored, and that the arms embargo was breached by supplying weapons to the rebels (Bellamy, 2015, p.179). This controversy around the coercive military aspects of R2P’s third pillar has meant that the consensus around the doctrine as a whole has frayed. This is evident most clearly in the rhetoric used by Russia to reject authorising intervention in Syria (regardless of Russian intentions behind this rhetoric) (Gifkins, 2012). 

The positions of the BRICS countries become increasingly important as the global balance of power continues to shift in their favour (Morris, 2013, p.1280). In response to the perceived excesses of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, and the damage that this did to the credibility of the R2P doctrine, Brazil have proposed the concept of ‘responsibility while protecting’ (RWP). While endorsing the basic principles of R2P, RWP calls for establishing a set of guidelines for implementing R2P. These include the strict chronological sequencing of the three pillars, limiting the resort to force and holding intervening states to account for breaching the guidelines (Kenkel, 2016).

With similar intentions and content, China proposed the concept of ‘responsible protection’ (RP). RP requires that the goals of intervention are outlined more clearly, the means of protection are limited, the intervenors are responsible for post-intervention rebuilding, and mechanisms of supervision are put in place to hold intervenors accountable for any breaches of their defined mandate, among other measures (Zongze, 2012). Both RP and RWP were thus, at least ostensibly, attempts to bridge the widening gap between R2P supporters and sceptics.

Although RWP and RP are well-thought-out attempts to address the serious concerns with R2P that arose in the wake of the Libyan intervention, they have ultimately failed to make a significant impact on the doctrine (Bachman, 2015, p.64). If a set of rules governing an R2P intervention, like those presented in RWP and RP, could be strictly enforced by an international authority, perhaps they would sufficiently alleviate the ailments of R2P. However, in the current international system, where no such authority exists and national interest-driven ulterior motives for intervention are inevitably present, RWP and RP are insufficient and have failed to gain traction among Western powers. 

The presence of such ulterior motives makes R2P interventions prone to expanding their objectives, even if this works against the supposedly primary objective of protecting populations (Kuperman, 2013, p.135). Evidence of national interest-driven ulterior motives being a necessary condition for R2P intervention can be seen in the inconsistency with which R2P has been applied. For instance, it is suggested that the US interest in Libya’s rich natural resources and geostrategic importance were decisive factors in choosing to intervene there (Hehir, 2013, p.156). On the other hand, US interests in its regional alliances have led to an almost diametrically opposite response to the similar situation in Bahrain, where pro-democracy protestors have been brutally tortured and killed (Graubart, 2015, p.214). This is not to claim that humanitarian concerns are not considered whatsoever, but that they are overridden by national interest. These ulterior motives not only negatively impact the effectiveness of interventions to protect populations, but also have negative reputational costs for the R2P doctrine, as evidenced by the current aversion of BRICS and other states to the doctrine (Paris, 2014). This aversion is primarily due to their concerns with the coercive military aspects of pillar three, despite their fundamental agreement with the underlying principles of R2P (Stuenkel, 2014). 

The problem of ulterior motives has led Graubart (2015) to advocate for eliminating the coercive military component of R2P entirely. He argues that normatively legitimating military intervention to protect populations is effectively establishing a new category for resorting to force. This new category is ripe for manipulation and its net impact in being implemented will only be more national interest-driven interventions that will ultimately cause more suffering than they will prevent (Graubart, 2015, pp.210-217).

A strong argument against the case for eliminating the coercive military component is that such interventions are going to happen either way, so it is better that we have a set of norms governing these interventions, rather than allow them to be driven entirely by national interest. It is argued, for instance, that the ‘pragmatic appeal of R2P is that rather than be paralysed by geopolitical hierarchies, it carves out a category of mixed-motive, status quo friendly interventions that nevertheless save lives’ (Graubart, 2015, p.204). In response, it is argued that military interventions are inevitably going to be driven by motives of national interest, but R2P increases the prevalence of these interventions by providing a humanitarian cover for these motives, thus reducing the normative hurdles in front of intervening militarily (Graubart, 2015, p.217).

This fiery debate around coercive military intervention, which was stoked by the Libyan intervention, will continue to rage on. But rather than eliminating the coercive military component of R2P completely, the lesson that should be drawn from the Libyan case is that the coercive military component should be disaggregated from the rest of the R2P doctrine. This will allow for the military intervention debate to continue outside of the framework of R2P, while allowing the consensus around R2P to strengthen significantly, ultimately leading to increased protection of populations in the future. 

There is seemingly a trade-off between R2P’s ability to not allow states to act indifferently in the face of looming mass atrocities and its not providing states with an excuse to engage in national interest-driven interventions under the guise of humanitarianism. Removing the coercive military component from R2P softens this trade-off. It prevents R2P from being used as an excuse for military interventions driven primarily by national interest. However, without its coercive military component, R2P can still encourage the international community to act in the face of mass atrocities. For instance, Gallagher (2015, pp.1268-1271) highlights the utility of international assistance under pillar two for addressing threats posed by non-state armed groups. 

Coercive military intervention is by far the most contentious part of the R2P doctrine as it is invariably where states’ interests are the most at stake. The use of force ‘will always be politics all the way down’ (Morris, 2013, p.1282). Removing the coercive military component will purge R2P of the most corrosive national interest-driven motives. This will allow the protection of populations to remain the primary objective of R2P implementations. 

Moreover, this will strengthen the consensus around the R2P doctrine. There is widespread agreement on the basic principles of R2P (Morris, 2013, p.1283), even among the BRICS and other sceptical countries (Odeyemi, 2016, p.14). States will no longer fear that the ‘soft’ pillar three actions (such as sanctions) will constitute the thin end of the pillar three wedge, which will be used to open the door for military intervention; a fear that Russia and China have expressed in justifying their vetos on Security Council Resolutions regarding Syria (Morris, 2013, p.1276; 2016, p.206). So, removing its coercive military component will allow for an expanded consensus to build around R2P, solidifying it as an international norm, increasing its breadth of cascade and depth of internalisation among states. This will ultimately lead to more consistent application of R2P and therefore more widespread and systematic protection of populations globally. 

The huge hit that R2P’s credibility took in the wake of the Libyan intervention will be deflected, allowing the doctrine to protect populations from mass atrocities into the future. It will do so by focussing on solidifying the norms around sovereign responsibilities under pillar one, providing support to states to prevent mass atrocities under pillar two, and using nonviolent means to convince states to uphold their responsibilities under pillar three. It is acknowledged that some situations, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide, do require coercive military intervention to stop mass atrocities from occurring. Therefore, the debate around military intervention should continue outside of the R2P framework, and R2P might still be able to trigger the doctrine that will potentially come out of this debate. The content of this debate is outside the scope of this article, but Ramesh Thakur (2013, p.63) suggests that, since interventions are likely to occur in developing countries, this debate should initially take place between the governments and civil societies of developing countries, and then between developing and developed countries.

Disaggregating the military intervention component of R2P is not a panacea and is likely to be met with significant opposition. Firstly, it does not address any of the concerns about decisions to intervene militarily. However, it does prevent these concerns from impacting the R2P doctrine as a whole, thereby saving the body of the doctrine from normative contamination (Morris, 2013, p.1283).

One counterargument to this disaggregation proposal is that R2P is built on three mutually-reinforcing pillars of equal length (Welsh, 2016, p.5) and that this disaggregation would essentially be to saw off half of pillar three, causing the entire R2P edifice to collapse. R2P was born out of the urge to prevent mass atrocities such as those that occurred in Rwanda and Kosovo, atrocities that would have required military intervention to prevent. So, to remove the military intervention component would be to rob the doctrine of its core content and render it ineffectual in addressing the problems that it was designed to prevent. However, ‘the true essence of R2P is the understanding that sovereignty denotes responsibility rather than license’ (Morris, 2013, p.1283). R2P’s real power is in its normative force to encourage states and the wider international community to ensure that this responsibility is fulfilled (Morris, 2013, p.1283). Moreover, the debate around military intervention would not be jettisoned entirely, just removed from the R2P framework. The (perhaps once reasonable) desire to maintain the conceptual holism of R2P has become a demand for unattainable perfection (Morris, 2013, p.1280). 

Another counterargument is that this proposal would simply be rejected, especially by Western powers. However, there is reason to believe that disaggregating coercive military intervention from R2P would gain wide support in the UN General Assembly (Graubart, 2015, p.218). If this support was not forthcoming, a potential weaker solution could be to remove coercive military intervention from pillar three and make this the fourth pillar of R2P. This may go some way in addressing the problems with R2P that were highlighted by the case of Libya. However, considerations around the conceptual implications of this solution are outside the scope of this article. 

In light of the disastrous humanitarian situation that has resulted from the military intervention in Libya and NATO’s perceived abuse of its mandate, the future of the R2P doctrine is in question. The key lesson that should be drawn from the Libyan case is that the coercive military component must be disaggregated from R2P. The controversial debate around military intervention will rage on, but this solution will salvage the R2P doctrine, strengthening its normative force and, ultimately, allowing for more people to be protected from mass atrocities in the future. 

Bibliography

African Union. 2011. Communique of the 261st Meeting of the Peace and Security Council, PSC/PR/COMM(CCXLI).

Amnesty International. 2012. Libya: The forgotten victims of NATO strikes. [Accessed 12 May 2017]. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/MDE19/003/2012/en/

Amnesty International. 2017. Report 2016/2017: The State of the World’s Human Rights. London: Amnesty International.

Bachman, J. 2015. R2P’s ‘Ulterior Motive Exemption’ and the Failure to Protect in Libya. Politics and Governance.3(4), pp.56-67. 

Bellamy, A. 2015. The Responsibility to Protect Turns Ten. Ethics and International Affairs. 29(2), pp.161-185.

Council of the League of Arab States. 2011. The Implications of the Current Events in Libya and the Arab Position, Resolution number 7360.

Evans, G. 2013. ‘R2P down but not out after Libya and Syria’. Open Global Rights. [Accessed 16 March 2018]. Available from: https://www.openglobalrights.org/r2p-down-but-not-out-after-libya-and-syria/.

Gallagher, A. 2015. ‘The promise of pillar II: analysing international assistance under the Responsibility to Protect’. International Affairs. 91(6), pp.1259-1275.

Gifkins, J. 2012. ‘The UN Security Council Divided: Syria in Crisis’. Global Responsibility to Protect4(3), pp.377-393.

Glanville, L. 2013. ‘Intervention in Libya: From Sovereign Consent to Regional Consent’. International Studies Perspectives. 14(3), pp.325-342. 

Graubert, J. 2015. ‘War is Not the Answer: The Responsibility to Protect and Military Intervention’. In: Thakur, R. and Maley, W. ed. Theorizing the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hehir, A. 2013. ‘The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect’. International Security. 38(1), pp.137-159.

Human Rights Watch. 2011a. Libya: Militias terrorizing residents of “loyalist” town. [Accessed 12 May 2017]. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/30/libya-militias-terrorizing-residents-loyalist-town.

Human Rights Watch. 2011b. Libya: Apparent execution of 53 Gaddafi supporters. [Accessed 12 May 2017]. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/24/libya-apparent-execution-53-gaddafi-supporters.

Human Rights Watch. 2012. Unacknowledged deaths: Civilian casualties in NATO’s air campaign in Libya. [Accessed 12 May 2017]. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/05/13/unacknowledged-deaths/civilian-casualties-natos-air-campaign-libya

ICISS. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: The Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 

Kenkel, K. M. 2016. ‘Brazil and the ‘Responsibility While Protecting’ Initiative’. Sustainable Security. [Accessed 13 May 2017]. Available from: https://sustainablesecurity.org/2016/06/09/brazil-and-the-responsibility-while-protecting-initiative/

Kuperman, A. 2013. ‘A Model Humanitarian Intervention?: Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign’. International Security. 38(1), pp.105-136.

Morris, J. 2013. ‘Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum’. International Affairs. 89(5), pp.1265-1283.

Morris, J. 2016. ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the use of force: Remaking the Procrustean bed?’, Cooperation and Conflict. 51(2), pp.200-215.

Odeyemi, C. 2016. ‘R2P intervention, BRICS countries, and the no-fly zone measure in Libya’’. Cogent Social Sciences. 2(1), pp.1-16. 

Paris, R. 2014. ‘The ‘responsibility to protect’ and the structural problems of preventive humanitarian intervention’. International Peacekeeping. 21(5), pp.569-603. 

Silander, D. 2013. ‘R2P—Principle and Practice? The UNSC on Libya’. Journal of Applied Security Research. 8(2), pp.262-284. 

Stuenkel, O. 2014. ‘The BRICS and the Future of R2P: Was Syria or Libya the exception?’. Global Responsibility to Protect6(1), pp.3-28.

Thakur, R. 2013. ‘R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers’. The Washington Quarterly. 36(2), pp.61-76. 

United Nations Security Council. 2011a. Security Council resolution 1970 on establishment of a Security Council Committee to monitor implementation of the arms embargo against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, S/RES/1970.

United Nations Security Council. 2011b. Security Council resolution 1973 on the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, S/RES/1973.

United Nations. 2005. United Nations World Summit Outcome Document, A/60/1. 

United Nations. 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General, A/63/677.

Welsh, J. 2016. The Responsibility to Protect at Ten: Glass Half Empty or Half Full? The International Spectator.51(2), pp.1-8. 

Zongze, R. 2012. ‘Responsible Protection: Building a Safer World’. China Institute of International Studies. [Accessed 13 May 2017]. Available from: http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012-06/15/content_5090912.htm.

India’s stand on the Responsibility to Protect: The UN Security Council and the Libya crisis

By Heena Makhija 

Heena Makhija is a student at Centre for International Politics, Organizations and Disarmament at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, undertaking an MPhil in International Organizations.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s idealism and commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security has remarkably influenced India’s response towards international conflicts. In the Security Council, in its capacity as a non-permanent member, India has been a supporter of peaceful and responsible policy decisions for conflict resolution. In the past few decades, international intervention in conflict zones for the protection of civilians from war crimes on account of the failure of domestic state machinery has been a matter of debate in mainstream academia. Though India has been one of the largest contributors to the UN Peacekeeping Missions, its approach to the idea of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ has been cautious.

This paper seeks to analyse India’s approach to the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, especially with regard to where it stands in the UN Security Council discussions. The first section traces India’s evolving stance on the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’. The second section analyses India’s stance on the use of R2P in Libya and its reasons for abstaining in the UN Security Council voting on the issue of intervention. The third section seeks to evaluate India’s response and strategy after the military intervention in Libya. The concluding section attempts to bring out the lessons India drew from the Libyan experience and its influence on India’s present-day approach to R2P.

Humanitarian intervention, R2P and India 

Though the idea of humanitarian intervention in conflict zones has existed for decades, its conceptualization under the aegis of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is fairly new. India, given its experience with colonialism, inherited a divided, exploited and dependent society that was vulnerable to internal dissension and external interference (Ayoob, 2004, p. 99). Therefore, India accorded utmost priority to the principles of democracy and sovereignty whilst dealing with international actors. India’s apprehensions were triggered immediately after independence, as when it referred the issue of Jammu and Kashmir to the UN Security Council, instead of a fruitful resolution, Cold War politics shadowed the UN leading to a deadlock. In the light of the Kashmir issue, Indian leadership began to resist approaching multilateral institutions to intervene in conflict areas fearing a threat to its state sovereignty (Ganguly, 2016, p. 363). India’s response to the concept of international intervention in states’ affairs has been fluctuating over the years. In the 1960s, while India was quick to defend its intervention in Goa to drive out the Portuguese by force, on the other hand, it was highly critical of the Anglo-French intervention in Egypt over the issue of the Suez Canal. At the United Nations, India actively caucused with Asian and African nations for supporting the resolution demanding compliance with the UN resolutions and a ceasefire (Nayudu, 2016). Following an idealist and moral approach, while India continued to criticize the Western bloc at international forums for its interventionist policies, India itself came under fire for its semi-interventionist conduct in its immediate neighbourhood. When the domestic turmoil in East Pakistan led to a huge influx of refugees, India argued that Pakistan’s internal conflict had become a grave concern for India’s security (Bass, 2015, p. 232). Indira Gandhi decided to intervene militarily in view of the failure of diplomatic efforts and Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation in 1971. India justified its interventionist role on the grounds of self-defence as Pakistan had initiated the war (Ganguly, 2016, p. 364). India’s armed involvement in East Pakistan in 1971 is viewed as one of the world’s foremost successful attempts at humanitarian intervention against genocide (Mehta, 2011, p. 100). Side-lining its ethical commitment to state sovereignty, India also briefly intervened in Sri Lanka’s civil war between the armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1987. Thus, despite its strong commitment to the principle of upholding state sovereignty, India’s stand was based on its own national interest and on the merit of each case. 

However, in the 1990s, several incidents of mass atrocities on civilian populations emerged. As evidence of heinous crimes against unarmed populations started surfacing in the international arena, demands for humanitarian intervention increased. No principled approach or international law existed for handling cases such as Somalia, Rwanda, and Kosovo. Disagreements emerged on whether the international community exercised a right to intervene. If yes, then how should it be carried out and under whose authority? (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). The ‘Responsibility to Protect’, or the R2P norm, emerged from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report in 2001 and was codified in the World Summit Outcome document in 2005 (Bloomfield, 2015). The UN Secretary General’s 2009 Report ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’ placed the three pillars of the R2P principle in the public discourse. Pillar One focused on the protection responsibilities of the state, Pillar Two dealt with international assistance and capacity-building, and Pillar Three enshrined timely and decisive response from the international community (Assembly, 2009). However, international intervention in domestic conflicts for the protection of civilians from genocide, war crimes, and ethnic conflict has been under normative criticism and contestation since its very inception (Mahdavi, 2015, pp. 8-9). 

India approached the principle of R2P with suspicion and caution. Given the international climate that favoured a decisive policy to curtail domestic atrocities, India did not resist the first two pillars of R2P as they were in coherence with India’s foreign policy. India favoured a ‘soft’ approach where policy-makers supported measures such as diplomatic missions and unarmed ceasefire monitoring missions (Bloomfield, 2015, p. 31). However, India rendered strong opposition to the third pillar of R2P, describing it as an unnecessary interference in domestic concerns of a state and a tool of powerful nations to topple over existing regimes and threaten the state sovereignty. Nirupam Sen, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations until 2009, openly voiced his criticism of the R2P principle in UN meetings and portrayed it as military humanism and re-emergence of humanitarian intervention in a new facet (Teitt, 2012, p. 200).

India’s approach as a UN Security Council non-permanent member and the Libya crisis 

In 2009, Hardeep Singh Puri, the new Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, took charge and continued to adopt a pragmatic approach to R2P. However, maintaining its firm stand on treating intervention as the last resort, India did accept the peacekeeping principle of PoC (Protection of Civilians) while stressing its preference for Pillar One and Pillar Two of R2P (Bloomfield, 2015, pp. 33-34). India was running for non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council in the forthcoming year, thus flexibility and a pragmatic stance was in coherence with its aspirations. India was selected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2010 with a record result of 187 affirmatives out of 191 votes (Krause, 2016, pp. 24-25).  India entered the Security Council in 2011 as a non-permanent member after a gap of 18 years. Undoubtedly, India wanted to prove itself to be a worthy contender for a permanent seat at the horseshoe table. Adding ‘value’ to the proceedings by acting as an objective bridge between member states and active participation was a necessary medium to strengthen its claim (Mishra and Kumar, 2013). 

At the beginning of 2011, the escalating crisis in Libya was one of the crucial challenges encountered by the Security Council. Rebellion groups under the umbrella of ‘Arab Spring’ that had engulfed the Middle East revolted against Muammar Gaddafi, leading to a civil war in the country (Shrivastav, 2011, p. 3) The matter was brought to UN Security Council’s attention by a faction of revolting Libyan officials as reports of gross violations of human rights and a crackdown on civilians began surfacing. Gaddafi already had a turbulent history as sanctions were imposed over his role in the 1988 terrorist attack on the Pan American Flight 103 (Puri, 2016, pp. 59-60). The public opinion was full of rage and contempt for the Libyan leader and there was ample evidence that mass atrocities were being inflicted on the civilians by the state. 

Resolution 1970 was passed by the UN Security Council on 26th February 2011 after a marathon 12-hour session (Puri, 2016, p. 69). The resolution called for an end to violence in Libya with immediate effect, an arms embargo, and referred the conflict to the International Criminal Court (ICC). India, along with China, Brazil, and South Africa had their reservations about the ICC referral and favoured a calibrated approach of first threatening with a referral in a future date (Puri, 2016, p. 71). Despite the initial reservations, India went ahead and voted in favour of resolution 1970. India’s affirmative stand can be attributed to two major reasons. First, India was at the table after a long hiatus and abstaining or voting negatively on an issue of heinous crimes against civilians while international community including African and Non-Aligned Movement nations favoured strict action, it would have served as a setback for India’s aspirations. Secondly, closer ties with the United States might have had a role to play in shaping India’s decision (Ganguly, 2016).  

In March 2011, the UN Under-Secretary-General stated that the Gaddafi Regime was using heavy artillery and air and naval assets against civilians and rebels (Puri, 2016, p. 81). This marked the onset of an official intervention in Libya through Resolution 1973 and the US encouraged promulgating Chapter VII of the UN charter for authorizing the use of force. Resolution 1973 was adopted by the Security Council on 17th March 2011, with 5 members – Brazil, Russia, China, India, and Germany – abstaining (Puri, 2016, p. 90). Resolution 1973 was one of the most debated and controversial decisions in the history of R2P (Bellamy, 2011). India, though voted in favour of Resolution 1970, abstained from voting on Resolution 1973. In order to understand the reasons behind India abstention, it is necessary to understand the contents of Resolution 1973. As stated in the official press release of the UN Security Council (2011),

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Gaddafi regime and its supporters. Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

As Indian representative Hardeep Singh Puri pointed out, India was highly skeptical of the ground realities in Libya and in absence of official clarification it did not want to take any decision in haste. Moreover, the mandate of the UN and ceasefire procedures to be implemented were vague and threatened the sovereignty of Libyans. India was also deeply concerned about the safety of its nationals in Libya, as only a third of them had been evacuated (Puri, 2016, p. 85). Internationally, India did not want to support a resolution that might lead to a regime change and escalate the crisis in absence of any certainty on how a military intervention would shape. Domestic concerns also played a pivotal role in shaping India’s stand. Supporting a precedent that validates intervention might have backfired given the conflicts and secessionist tendencies within India. Also, aiding the Western democracies to intervene in a Muslim state carried a threat of backlash from the Muslim population within India (Ganguly, 2016). Since there was no clarity about the end goals of this operation, it would have been difficult for the Indian government to justify its support for this resolution to its coalition partners and domestic constituencies (Shrivastav, 2011). 

Despite numerous justifications for abstaining on Resolution 1973, some critics consider it to be a lost opportunity where India could have supported the Western powers and substantiated its claim of being a compelling democratic rising power in the international fora (Ganguly, 2016, p. 369). India is also criticized for ‘inaction’ and its unwillingness to take strong decisions and act as a responsible power (Pillai, 2012). However, the critics must take into consideration that not following the West on a resolution that was against India’s ethical foreign policy approach as well as its national interest, India exercised its autonomy in foreign affairs. Moreover, India did vote in favour of Resolution 1970, thus its commitment to the protection of civilians in Libya cannot be questioned (Shrivastav, 2011). Though India had serious concerns about the procedures to be adopted under Resolution 1973, it still abstained from voting rather than putting in a negative vote, thus paving the way for the passing of resolution without acting as a hindrance. A liberal approach of supporting democracy and protection of human rights guided India’s policy as India’s abstention achieved a middle ground – it did not degrade its relations with the West or the Arab world (Bloomfield, 2015, p. 41).

India’s response post-Libya intervention

As soon as Resolution 1973 passed, NATO warplanes surrounded Libyan airspace dropping their lethal arsenal. Indiscriminate bombing and full-scale military intervention made it very clear to the international community that the resolution aimed at regime change rather than putting an end to the cycle of violence.  Resolution 1973 had five major goals – a ceasefire with the mediation of the African Union, use of all necessary means to protect civilians, a no-fly zone, an arms embargo, and targeted sanctions. Notably, with the passing of the resolution, members of NATO side-lined the African Union and the sole focus was on the use of all necessary means by bombing Libya (Puri, 2016, p. 92). Within a month, it became clear to the Indian policymakers that NATO was pursuing a regime change in Libya (Puri, 2016, p. 103).

India was highly critical of the way the operation was unfolding in Libya. In the subsequent Security Council meetings, Indian UN Representative Hardeep Singh Puri was actively denouncing the manner in which Resolution 1973 was being implemented. In a sharp exchange of words in April 2011, he pointed to the Council that the reports showcased arming of the rebel groups by the NATO forces. It was also increasingly clear that the goal of regime change was getting the better of all objectives, but that was neither mentioned per se in Resolution 1973 nor was it approved by the Security Council (Puri, 2016, p. 102). He concluded that Libya gave a bad name and raised serious questions about the credibility of the principle of R2P. Violation of human rights did not appear to be the reason for intervention in the state affairs, rather deeper strategic issues such as oil fields and incompatible leadership emerged as motivating factors for the operation (Khandekar, 2015, p. 121). NATO’s military action in Libya followed the official passage of Resolution 1973, setting a dangerous example on how the official channels were used to authorize an operation that did not end the violence or civil strife in Libya rather it sowed seeds for a turbulent future in the region.

As the Libyan crisis broke out, though India was voicing its opposition, it came under scrutiny within India from media, public, and the opposition who actively analysed India’s stand on the matter. Indian media was quick to point out the direct impact of Libyan crisis on the oil prices and the plight of Indians who were still stranded in the war-torn country (Bloomfield, 2015, p. 9). Policymakers extensively questioned India’s abstention on the resolution. Left-oriented parties with their anti-Western rhetoric saw India’s inability to vote against the resolution as its failure to give structure to its anti-imperial foreign policy ideals (Chishti, 2011). On the other hand, realists pointed out that India might not be willing to intervene directly in the internal affairs of states but its support for the resolution that might stabilize the region would have served its long-term interests in international forums (Rajamohan, 2011). 

It was evidently clear for India that the UN Security Council resolution 1973 was not implemented and formulated in a way that was in sync with the noble cause of R2P. As a policy approach, the Libyan experience brought back India’s serious concerns with Pillar Three of R2P. India did try to mould its position by voting in favour of Resolution 1970, but the aftermath of NATO’s intervention in Libya made India reiterate its initial hostility towards Pillar Three. India’s long-standing scepticism about the Western powers and the limited ability of a military intervention to solve humanitarian crisis were validated by the Libyan experience (Krause, 2016). 

India and the future of R2P

Resolution 1973 advanced the debate on the principle and implementation of R2P. In hindsight, it is possible that the Security Council might not have authorized the resolution had it known that it would be used in a selective manner for military action in Libya (Puri, 2016, p. 103). India’s fears were proven right with the breakdown of the Libyan state after the intervention. During its two-year stint as the non-permanent member of the Security Council, India maintained a calculated and pragmatic approach towards intra-state conflicts. With respect to R2P, India’s lessons learned from Libya’s experience were clearly visible in its approach to the crisis in Syria. It was very evident that critics of the resolution 1973 were not going to throw Syria down the same road. In October 2011, when a resolution to condemn the actions of Bashar-al-Assad in Syria was put for vote in the UN Security Council, China and Russia used their veto and India abstained with a view to prevent any further Western intervention. India was not in denial of the disturbing situation in Syria but wanted to pursue a calibrated approach. It is evident from the fact that under the presidency of India, the UN Security Council issued an initial statement on Syria that condemned the use of force on the civilians by the authorities (Puri, 2016). 

Towards the end of its term, India did vote in favour of putting non-military sanctions against the Assad regime, but Russia and China continue to use their vetoes to block the resolutions. Overall, during its term in the UN Security Council, India depicted active support for the first two pillars of R2P. It never voted in negative and fluctuated between abstaining and voting in favour of the resolutions. India was clear about not endorsing any narrowly worded document that might be twisted by the Western nations as it happened in Libya (Bloomfield, 2015). At the beginning of 2013, with the rise of the Islamic State as the situation in the Middle East took a critical turn, it became evidently clear that the means to implement R2P had not succeeded in Libya. 

If we analyse India’s role in the Libyan conflict and larger debate on R2P, it had been wise on India’s part to remain on the side-lines. Libya was a test case and its outcome rightly hardened India’s aversive stance to the idea of military intervention in conflict zones. It also paved way for a renewed debate on the concept of R2P. India argued that responsibility does not end with a military response. When the principle is applied, it must respect the fundamental aspects of the UN Charter including the sovereignty and integrity of member states (Mishra and Kumar, 2013). Thus, India supported the Brazilian proposal for the ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ (Krause, 2016, p. 35). Protection of civilians from autocratic and abusive regimes is undoubtedly essential, but it should not compromise on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state.  

To conclude, India’s initial critical stance towards the principle of R2P softened in the prelude to its membership of the UN Security Council in 2011. Whether it was the international pressure or the desire to take a strong stand, India though maintained its practical demeanour, it did flirt with the idea and partially supported Pillar Three of the R2P. The disastrous outcomes of the NATO intervention in Libya where regime change and Western aspirations overshadowed the positive dimensions that R2P aimed to achieve, brought India back to its calculated and cautious approach. In the post-2012 scenario, India has time and again stressed the anomalies in the system of international intervention aspect of R2P. As a post-colonial state, India, especially after the Libyan experience, finds it difficult to endorse Western interventionist policies. Though India asserts the highest value to the territorial integrity of a state, India’s stand on R2P cannot be consistent and might fluctuate on the case to case basis in the future, keeping in mind its national interest and aspirations (Ganguly, 2016).

Bibliography

UNGA. 2009. A/63/677 Report of the Secretary General, s.l.: s.n.

Ayoob, M. 2004. ‘Third world perspectives on humanitarian intervention and international administration’, Global Governance, 10(1), pp. 99-118.

Bass, G. 2015. ‘The Indian Way of Humanitarian Intervention’. The Yale Journal of International Law, 40(227), pp. 227 – 294.

Bellamy, A., 2011. The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and Beyond. s.l.:s.n.

Bloomfield, A., 2015. ‘India and the Libyan Crisis: Flirting with the Responsibility to Protect, Retreating to the Sovereignty Norm’, Contemporary Security Policy, 36(1), pp. 27-55.

Chishti, S., 2011. Colonel’s End. s.l.:Indian Express.

Evans, G. and Sahnoun, M. 2002. ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), pp. 99-110.

Ganguly, S. 2016. ‘India and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Relations Volume, 30(3)p. 363.

Khandekar, R. 2015. ‘India and the Responsibility to Protect’s Third Pillar’, in: The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar. London: Palgrave Macmillan .

Krause, D. 2016. It is changing after all: India’s stance on ‘Responsibility to Protect’. Observer Research Foundation, Issue Occasional Paper 90.

Mahdavi, M., 2015. A Postcolonial Critique of Responsibility to Protect in the Middle East. Perceptions , 10(1), pp. 7-36.

Mehta, P. B., 2011. Do new democracies support democracy? Reluctant India. Journal of Democracy , 22(4), pp. 97-109.

Mishra, S. and Kumar, K. S. 2013.’ India’s Two Years at the Horseshoe Table’. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, pp. 1-10.

Nayudu, S. K., 2016. India’s moment in the Suez Canal crisis. s.l.:The Hindu Business Line.

Pillai, R. 2012. India’s Libya Shame will haunt It. s.l.:The Diplomat.

Puri, H. S. 2016. Perilous Interventions: The Security Council and Politics of Chaos. Delhi: Harper Collins Publisher, India.

Rajamohan, C. 2011. It’s not West vs the rest. s.l.:s.n.

Shrivastav, S. K. 2011. India’s Response to the Libyan Crisis. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 13 April.

Teitt, S. 2012. ‘Paper Tiger or Platform for Action? South Asia and the Responsibility to Protect’. In: A. Knight & F. Egerton, eds. The Routledge Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect. London: Routledge.

United Nations Security Council. 2011. Security Council 6498th Meeting. [Online] 
Available at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm.
[Accessed 5 April 2017].

A Norm-in-Formation? An Analysis of Brazil and China’s Normative Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect

Joseph Jegat, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Joseph graduated from the University of Leeds in 2016.

The question of whether the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an established norm in international relations has been the subject of much academic debate in recent years. This paper will argue that R2P is best described not as a fully established norm, but as a ‘norm-in-formation’ (Negron-Gonzalez and Contarino, 2014). It reaches this conclusion based on three assessments of R2P. First, R2P is a complex norm with a contested nature, which prevents it from being fully internalised by states. Second, contestation surrounding R2P’s Pillar III can actually help to consolidate and further establish the norm rather than weaken it. Third, Brazil and China are engaging with R2P in a way that contributes to its normative formation and establishment in international relations.

This article will be split into three sections. The first section will analyse the complex nature of the R2P norm and will show that contestation is both a normal and beneficial part of R2P’s global diffusion. The second section will assess the ways in which Brazil and China have contributed to the continued normative formation of R2P through their respective concepts of ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ and ‘Responsible Protection’. The third section will offer conclusive remarks.

R2P: A Complex and Contested Norm

Norms in the discipline of International Relations can describe two things. First, they can describe existing social realities, or how the world is. Second, they can describe an aspiration, providing a framework for how the world ought to be (Ralph and Souter, 2015, p.68). As a normative aspiration, R2P is clear. There exists shared expectation that states have a responsibility to protect their populations, and that if they fail to do so, then the international community should help to protect these populations. This basic premise of R2P was unanimously adopted in 2005 and outlined in paragraphs 138 – 140 of the World Summit Outcome Document (UNGA, 2005). Whether R2P is an existing social reality, however, is less clear, and will be the focus of this essay.

R2P is best described as a ‘complex norm’ (Welsh, 2013), as it contains at least two norms, concerning both the responsibility of individual states and of the international community (Bellamy, 2014, p.22). The responsibility of states to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (Pillar I) is now a universally accepted norm embedded in international law. Pillar I has a high degree of what Jeffrey Legro (1997) terms ‘specificity’, meaning that it is clear and unambiguous, increasing the ‘compliance-pull’ of the norm (Franck, 1990, in Bellamy, 2014, p.7). The higher the specificity of a norm, the less open it is to contestation, which goes some way to explaining why Pillar I can be considered a fully consolidated norm in the discipline of International Relations. Pillar III (international intervention) on the other hand, and to a lesser extent Pillar II (international assistance), is much less universally accepted, partly because it lacks specificity, leaving it open to subjective interpretation.

The complex and sometimes ambiguous nature of R2P makes it especially vulnerable to criticism (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, 2013; Garwood-Gowers, 2015). Pillar III in particular lacks conceptual clarity – highlighted, for example, by the lack of a threshold criteria for when international intervention becomes necessary and legitimate. For sceptics such as Aidan Hehir, the lack of clarity regarding intervention ‘influences the extent to which R2P can be deemed to constitute a “norm”’ (2013, p.151). Furthermore, Hehir (2013) argues that R2P had little, if any, influence over the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decision to militarily intervene in Libya in 2011. Hehir’s criticisms highlight the fact that Pillar III remains highly contested, which prevents R2P as a whole from being considered fully established in International Relations.

Focusing solely on Pillar III, however, ignores the normative consolidation of both Pillars I and II. Although the 2011 Libyan intervention has somewhat stalled Pillar III progression, Pillar II has enjoyed widespread – although not absolute – support from states and has been the primary focus of the United Nations (UN) Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect since 2013 (Gallagher, 2015, p.1259). R2P has much more to it than just international military intervention. Perhaps paradoxically though, Pillar III contestation may help to further consolidate R2P in the long term.

Early Constructivist research on norms assumed that the ‘norm life cycle’ was a linear process, whereby norms emerge, cascade and become internalised in a progressive manner (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998), with a general assumption that once norms had become internalised they were set in stone. More recent work has shown, however, that norms remain contested even after states have internalised them. Norms are of an ‘inherently contested quality’ (Wiener and Puetter, 2009, p.7) better understood as dynamic ‘processes’ subject to ongoing dispute rather than ‘things’ as such (Krook and True, 2010). Norm contestation is, in fact, a regular feature of a norm’s life, which is not necessarily synonymous with normative regression (Hofmann, 2015; Garwood-Gowers, 2015).

If anything, contestation can actually help to clarify and reinforce a ‘norm-in-formation’. Cristina Badescu and Thomas Weiss (2010) find that misapplication of R2P has helped to consolidate the norm by clarifying the boundaries of the concept. For example, former French Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher’s attempts to invoke R2P after 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Burma helped clarify that R2P was applicable only to the four crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing) and not for humanitarian assistance following natural disasters (Badescu and Weiss, 2010, p.362).

Following this logic, the fallout over NATO’s perceived misuse of R2P during the 2011 Libya intervention may help to clarify the boundaries of Pillar III military intervention. UN Resolution 1973 explicitly stated that authorisation had been granted for NATO to ‘take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack’ (emphasis added, UNSC, 2011, p.3). It did not authorise regime change, which led to widespread criticism that NATO had overstepped its mandate and used R2P to mask a Western led liberal intervention with the ultimate goal of democratisation. Although NATO’s military actions have led to significant backlash against Pillar III (Garwood-Gowers, 2015, p.320) – as is all too visible in the UNSC stalemate over Syria – in the long term, the lessons learnt from the misuse of Pillar III in Libya may help to clarify the boundaries of Pillar III military action which will help make the norm more legitimate and applicable in the future (Acharya, 2013).

Post-2011 Pillar III contestation has been of what Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann (2013) define as ‘applicatory contestation’. Critics of the NATO intervention have taken issue with the way in which R2P’s Pillar III was interpreted and applied in Libya. They have not directed their criticism towards the more fundamental idea that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations when states are incapable or unwilling to do so. According to Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, this type of contestation usually strengthens a norm’s validity by helping to clarify the boundaries of its usage (2013, p.14). The second type of norm contestation is ‘justificatory’, which challenges core values and may lead to normative regression. Although there is some evidence that post-Libya contestation has been of a more challenging ‘justificatory’ nature (Garwood-Gowers, 2015), in general, states accept that international involvement is necessary is certain crises where mass atrocities have been committed (Bellamy, 2014; Evans, 2016). This suggests that the normative values of R2P may be more internalised than many critics assume.

Constructive engagement: Brazil and China 

The first part of this essay has argued that R2P is a complex norm, comprising multiple tenets that have been internalised to varying degrees. It has also shown that ‘applicatory contestation’ surrounding Pillar III can assist with conceptual clarification, helping the norm to become further established in the long term. The remainder of this essay will focus on the normative contributions made by Brazil and China, as these illustrate the continued formation of the R2P norm. These states have been selected as both have developed important concepts that aim to shape the trajectory of R2P’s advancement. Firstly, however, it is necessary to briefly explore the theoretical ways in which states can influence the development of a norm.

Norm diffusion describes the process by which global norms come to be accepted at the local level. This dynamic and active process is characterised by argumentation at the domestic and international level, which can both advance and restrain normative development (Kenkel and De Rosa, 2015). States engage with this process in a bid to act as ‘norm makers’ rather than ‘norm takers’. Emerging powers such as Brazil and China are particularly keen to be viewed as norm makers – and especially do not want to be viewed as norm takers – as it may help them attain the status of global powers (Kenkel and De Rosa, 2015; Prantl and Nakano, 2011). How states engage with norm diffusion, however, depends, for example, on factors such as compatibility of the global norm with pre-existing local norms (Brosig and Zahringer, 2015, p.352).

For Amitav Acharya, norm creation and diffusion is a two way process best defined as ‘norm circulation’, which combines Acharya’s earlier work on ‘localization’ and ‘subsidiarity’.

[G]lobal norms offered by transnational moral actors are contested and localized to fit the cognitive priors of local actors (localization), while this local feedback is repatriated back to the wider global context along with other locally constructed norms and help to modify and possibly defend and strengthen the global norm in question (subsidiarity) (2013, p.469).

Similarly, Jochen Prantl and Ryoko Nakano (2011) argue that norm diffusion is best described not as a top down linear process but as a ‘feedback loop’, whereby states attempt to alter the properties of a norm to fit their own strategic interests. The concepts of norm circulation and norm feedback highlight the dynamic nature of norm diffusion, and show that states can play important roles in shaping the trajectory of a ‘norm-in-formation’.

Brazilian and Chinese engagement with R2P fits within this theoretical framework. These emerging powers have simultaneously embraced and contested different parts of the norm according to pre-existing local norms, and have then attempted to modify R2P in order to accommodate this feedback. Their clearest attempts at shaping the norm have been in the form of Brazil’s Responsibility while Protecting (RwP) and China’s Responsible Protection concepts. Although both states embrace the central principles of R2P, they have taken issue with the way Pillar III was implemented by NATO in Libya (Kenkel and De Rosa, 2015; Negron-Gonzalez and Contarino, 2014). In China especially, there has been great difficulty in reconciling Pillar III intervention with local norms such as a longstanding and deeply rooted commitment to non-interference and the inviolability of sovereignty (Prantl and Nakano, 2011).

Although Brazil is also bound to the idea of non-interference, South American states’ experiences of military dictatorships have led to a strong normative commitment to human rights (Welsh et al, 2013). RwP, therefore, is aimed at improving the implementation of Pillar III action. It does not undermine the principles of R2P. Brazil’s RwP concept argues for the need to have more specific criteria for authorising military intervention, as existing provisions in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document are too vague (Tourihno et al, 2016). Similarly, China’s Responsible Protection builds on the ideas of RwP and the original International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ (2001), and outlines a stricter criteria for Pillar III military intervention. Responsible Protection stresses that any intervention must not negatively affect regional peace and stability, must not be interpreted to equate to regime change, and must not cause greater harm than already exists (Garwood-Gowers, 2016, p.103).

Brazil’s capacity to follow up RwP with concrete proposals for moving forward has been very limited (Welsh et al, 2013), and China’s Responsible Protection is not even official government policy (Garwood-Gowers, 2016). Despite these setbacks, Brazilian and Chinese engagement with R2P is of the utmost importance for the further development of R2P as a norm. These concepts have helped open up the debate on Pillar III intervention (Tourihno et al, 2016), and have highlighted the importance of getting non-Western emerging powers on board with R2P. RwP and Responsible Protection are forms of feedback which shape ‘norm circulation’ (Acharya, 2013), and hold great potential for progressing R2P in the aftermath of Libya. If states perceive themselves as ‘norm shapers’, they are much more likely to embrace and internalise said norm.

As Ramesh Thakur (2016) has argued, there should be a focus on improving the implementation of R2P to safeguard the norm from abuse and failure. This is exactly what RwP and Responsible Protection set out to do, by contesting Pillar III in an ‘applicatory’ manner which could help to clarify the boundaries of the norm, potentially bringing UNSC permanent 5 members Russia and China back on board (Evans, 2016). The willingness of emerging powers to engage with norm entrepreneurship is a positive sign, as the legitimacy of R2P is dependent upon acceptance by non-Western states (Garwood-Gowers, 2016). Long term consolidation of R2P requires a certain degree of consensus over Pillar III actions (Negron-Gonzalez and Contarino, 2014, p.270), and at present, the concepts offered by Brazil and China offer the most promising way forward.

Conclusion

This article has argued that R2P is best described not as a fully established norm, but as a ‘norm-in-formation’ (Negron-Gonzalez and Contarino, 2014). That is because R2P is a complex norm, combining multiple tenets that receive varying degrees of international support. Pillar I has become universally established and is enshrined in international law. Pillar III, on the other hand, is subjective and ambiguous, leaving it vulnerable to interpretation and contestation. Contestation, paradoxically, can aid with conceptual clarification, which will make the norm less vulnerable in the long term. In this way, post-Libya contestation may help to consolidate and further establish Pillar III, increasing the likelihood of state internalisation the R2P norm fully.

Furthermore, this article showed that through a process of feedback and circulation, Brazil and China have made valuable contributions to the continued normative formation of R2P. The RwP and RP concepts have raised important questions that must be addressed if R2P is to continue developing into its second decade. Assessing the point at which R2P can be considered an established norm poses difficulties by itself. Norms do not have a clear endpoint. They continue to evolve for as long as the norm is referred to and acted upon (Brosig and Zahringer, 2015, p.354). It is not within the scope of this essay to assess the theoretical point at which R2P may be considered fully established, but a step in that direction requires widespread consensus and internalisation of Pillar III. At present, this requires constructive engagement with non-Western concepts such as Brazil’s RwP and China’s Responsible Protection.

Bibliography

Acharya, A. 2013. ‘The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards a Framework of Norm Circulation’. Global Responsibility to Protect5. pp. 366 – 479

Badescu, C. Weiss, T. 2010. ‘Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?’. International Studies Perspective11. pp. 354 – 374

Bellamy, A. 2014. ‘Chapter 3: The Promise of R2P’. pp. 1 – 24. In: Bellamy, A. (2014). The Responsibility to Protect: A Defense. Oxford University Press: Oxford

Brosig, M. Zahringer, N. 2015. ‘Norm Evolution a Matter of Conformity and Contestedness: South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect7. pp. 350 – 375

Deitelhoff, N. Zimmermann, L. 2013. ‘Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Validity of International Norms’. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. Working Paper No. 18.

Evans, G. 2016. How to rid the world of genocide. The Washington Post. [Online]. [Accessed 24/02/2016]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/02/15/how-to-rid-the-world-of-genocide/

Finnemore, M. Sikkink, K. 1998. ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization52(4). pp. 887 – 917

Gallagher, A. 2015. ‘The promise of pillar II: analysing international assistance under the Responsibility to Protect’. International Affairs91(6). pp. 1259 – 1275

Garwood-Gowers, A. 2015. ‘R2P Ten Years After the World Summit: Explaining Ongoing  Contestation over Pillar III’. Global Responsibility to Protect7. pp. 300 – 324

Garwood-Gowers, A. 2016. ‘China’s “Responsible Protection” Concept: Reinterpreting the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes’. Asian Journal of International Law. 6(1). pp. 89 – 118.

Hehir, A. 2013. ‘The Permanence of Inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect’. International Security38(1). pp. 137 – 159

Hofmann, G. 2015. ‘R2P Ten Years on: Unresolved Justice Conflicts and Contestation’. Global Responsibility to Protect7. pp. 275 – 299

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty [ICISS]. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. [Online]. [Accessed 11/03/2016]. Available from: http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf

Kenkel, K. De Rosa, F. 2015. ‘Localization and Subsidiarity in Brazil’s Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect. 7. pp. 325 – 349

Krook, M. True, J. 2010. ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’. European Journal of International Relations18(1). pp. 103 – 127

Legro, J. 1997. ‘Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism’. International Organization.51(1). pp. 31 – 63

Negron-Gonzales, M. Contarino, M. 2014. ‘Local Norms Matter: Understanding National Responses to the Responsibility to Protect’. Global Governance20. pp. 255 – 276

Prantl, J. Nakano, R. 2011. ‘Global Norms Diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan Implement the Responsibility to Protect’. International Relations25(2). pp. 204 – 223

Ralph, J. Souter, J. 2015. ‘Is R2P a Fully-Fledged International Norm?’. Politics and Governance. 3(4). pp. 68 – 71

Thakur, R. 2016. No nation should fight global atrocities alone. The Washington Post. [Online]. [Accessed 24/02/2016]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/02/17/no-nation-should-fight-global-atrocities-alone/

Tourihno, M. Stuenkel, O. Brockmeier, S. 2016. ‘“Responsibility while Protecting”: Reforming R2P Implementation’. Global Society30(1). pp. 134 – 150

UNGA [United Nations General Assembly]. 2005. Resolution 60/1: World Summit Outcome. A/RES/60/1. [Online]. [Accessed 08/03/2016]. Available from: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/A-RES-60-1-E.pdf

UNSC [United Nations Security Council]. 2011. Resolution 1973. S/RES/1973. [Online]. [Accessed 08/03/2016]. Available from: http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

Welsh, J. 2013. ‘Norm Contestation and the Responsibility to Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect5. pp. 365 – 396

Welsh, J. Quinton-Brown, P. MacDiarmid, V. (2013). ‘Brazil’s “Responsibility While Protecting” Proposal: A Canadian Perspective’. [Online]. [Accessed 05/03/2016]. Available from: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/178-other-             R2P-concerns/4915-jennifer-welsh-patrick-quinton-brown-and-victor-macdiarmid-ccR2P-brazils-responsibility-while-protecting-proposal-a-canadian-perspective

Wiener, A. Puetter, U. 2009. ‘The Quality of Norms is What Actors Make of It: Critical Constructivist Research on Norms’. Journal of International Law and International Relations5(1). pp. 1 – 16

The Responsibility to Protect: Four Challenges on the Road Ahead

Dr. Adrian Gallagher, University of Leeds, Convenor BISA Working Group on Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

I would like to say congratulations to the R2P Student Coalition here at the University of Leeds. Three years ago, Professor Jason Ralph and I designed a third year module PIED3502 The Responsibility to Protect and Prosecute and it is fantastic to see this has galvanised such interest amongst students. Since then the teaching team has expanded to include Dr. Cristina Stefan (formerly Badescu) and Dr. James Souter which reflects an increasing number of staff including Professors Edward Newman and Graeme Davies that focus on the R2P and related issues. Juxtaposed with this has been somewhat of a ‘bottom up’ R2P movement that has arisen with a dedicated team of intelligent, professional students establishing the Student Coalition. The latest instalment of their efforts is this exciting journal, co-founded with Dominique Fraser, and I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Professor Alex Bellamy for writing the introduction to the first issue. Hopefully, both the Coalition and the Journal can grow from strength to strength and as its founder, Georgiana Epure, departs for pastures new, we are fortunate that two of our current undergraduate cohort – Blake Lawrinson and Luke Bullock – who are to start MA programmes here at Leeds in September 2016.

The second issue provides an apt moment to consider the key issues, questions, and challenges that will face the Responsibility to Protect in the second decade since the World Summit Outcome in 2005. The purpose here is not to provide answers as such but instead to raise questions, issues and concerns facing the R2P in the 21st century. The reason for this is that because this is a student-led journal, I thought I would take this opportunity to identify four research agendas where future MA and Ph.D. students can contribute something significant, timely, and rigorous on the discourse.

  1. Climate Change and Mass Violence

The relationship between climate change, environmental factors, and mass violence remains overlooked and undertheorised. At first, it may seem somewhat odd to suggest that there could in fact be a relationship between climate and violence, yet further consideration begins to reveal existing relationships in historical examples as well as the potential for an increasing level of such violence in the 21st century. In 2009, former President of the International Network of Genocide Scholars, Juergen Zimmerer, held an inter-disciplinary conference at the University of Sheffield to discuss this topic. Six years on, Zimmerer published an edited volume Climate Change and Genocide Environmental Violence in the 21st Century in which it is claimed ‘environmental violence, including resource crises such as peak fossil fuel, will lie at the heart of future conflicts’.

With this in mind, it underpins a broader call for action in order to pre-empt the exacerbation of such violence in the 21st century. Within the context of International Relations, scholars such as Ken Booth[1] have placed the threat posed by climate change within ‘the great reckoning’ of the 21st century. Meanwhile, prominent analysts such as Naomi Klein[2] put forward a somewhat apocalyptic vision which, if accurate, provides a fertile foundation for mass violence. As it stands, the problem facing the R2P is that for all the talk of encouraging and helping states to fulfil their R2P there is quite simply no blue print for how international society can and should respond to the potentially civilization changing relationship between climate change and violence.

  1. A New United Nations Secretary General (UNSG)

The power of the UNSG has been well documented over the years. In relation to mass violence, it is clear that Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon have played pivotal roles in both establishing and facilitating the R2P. Evidently shaped by his personal experiences in relation to the Rwandan genocide, Annan facilitated the R2P through his UN High Level Panel and established the first Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide in 2004.[3] Putting the efforts of Annan in context, Roméo Dallaire stated that Annan is ‘genuine to the core’ and ‘dedicated to the founding principles of the UN and tireless in his efforts to save the organisation from itself.’[4] A part of which was making sure the R2P initiative did not die out in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. The R2P-baton, if you will, was then passed onto Ban Ki-moon who has become a leading advocate of the R2P at the international level. Since 2009, he has released an annual R2P report which facilitated an informal interactive dialogue at the UN General Assembly as well as establishing a joint Office of the Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide and the R2P. All this effort begs the question, what next? Of course, only time will tell but whatever happens, the prominence of the R2P at the international level will undoubtedly be shaped by the new UNSG’s view of it. Furthermore, this calls for more research not just into how the UN facilitates ideas (as Thomas Weiss has written on[5]), but also the specific relationship between UNSGs and particular ideas and norms.

  1. Changing Power Balances

The R2P was born in an era of liberal imperialism. The key issue then is the extent to which changing power balances at the international level will shape the acceptance and resistance toward the R2P. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have been identified as key players but critically they do not speak with a unified voice as is often portrayed in the discourse. South Africa has been more comfortable with the R2P, yet criticised for flip flopping on Libya. India and Brazil continue to hold reservations about the use of force, with Brazil expressing concerns over pillar II actions – when the host state requests military assistance. China and Russia, of course, hold veto membership and continue to heavily influence the implementation of the R2P at the UN Security Council as witnessed by the division over Syria. Unable to go into all these issues here, I would point future researchers toward three special issues. To explain, in November 2013, the ESRC funded a 9 part-seminar series addressing this issue. The organisers Jason Ralph (University of Leeds), Aidan Hehir (University of Westminster), James Pattison (University of Manchester) and Adrian Gallagher (University of Leeds) went onto to publish three special issues related to this theme in 2015: Cooperation and Conflict, Criminal Law Forum and Global Responsibility to Protect.

  1. The Rise of Non-State Armed Groups

The 20th century was plagued by mass violence committed by governments. Sadly, they were very good at it and the perpetrators often got away with it. In his seminal study, Death by Government, R. J. Rummell calculated that 169,198,000 million were killed by their own government between 1900 and 1987, which he labelled as ‘democide’. Historically then, we have tended to theorise and conceptualise mass violence as a state crime precisely because states have the power to conduct mass killing. Yet, the rise of non-state actors and, in particular, more powerful non-state actors in the 21st century is changing the nature of mass violence. Although it is highly doubtful that groups such as DAESH, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and the Haqqani Network, will manage to destroy millions of people (unless they acquire weapons of mass destruction capability at some point in the future), they often display a clear intent to destroy groups. For example, earlier this year, in May 2016, the UK House of Commons, The US Congress, and The European Parliament have all declared that the DAESH are conducting genocide against the Yazidi community. Such actions would correlate with what Leo Kuper labelled as ‘genocidal massacres’ in his pioneering text Genocide: Its Political Use in the 20th Century.[6] As I have argued elsewhere, within the R2P framework, pillar II holds the most promise as states can assist other states to address the threat posed by non-state armed groups.[7] Yet, clearly more research is needed as we investigate the strengths and limitations of pillar II as well as its relationship with other norms such as the anti-terror norm in the future.

Overall, it would seem that mass violence will be a feature of the 21st century. In response, researchers have a responsibility to conduct significant, original, and rigorous studies that can help explain both its causes and responses. Good luck.

[1] See Booth, K. 2007. Theory of World Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[2] See Klein, N. 2014. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, London: Allen Lane

[3] See UNSC RES. S/2004/567

[4] See Dallaire, R. 2003. Shake Hands with the DevilThe Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Toronto: Random House Canada

[5] Weiss, T.  ‘How United Nations Ideas Changed History’, Review of International Studies36, Supplement S1, (October) pp. 3-23

[6] See Kuper, L. 1982. Genocide: Its Politics Use in the Twentieth Century, London: Yale University Press

[7] See Gallagher, A. 2015. ‘The Promise of Pillar II: Analysing International Assistance Under The Responsibility to Protect’, International Affairs, 91(6), pp.1259–1275