Though Gareth Evans identifies a continued need or justification for the responsibility to protect (R2P) by citing the existence of mass atrocities around the world even to this day,[footnoteRef:2] there is a contrary perspective that indicates the political and imperial manner in which the R2P doctrine can be used as a cover for hegemonic aims.[footnoteRef:3] Humanitarian intervention has been used as the excuse of the West, for instance, in various invasions around the world since 9/11 (but well before that as well) on up to the current crisis in Venezuela, over which the U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo and Sen. Rubio along with Ambassador Bolton have been using social media to promote R2P and justify regime change in the South American country in order to drum up support (both domestically and internationally) for American military action in the southern hemisphere. There are, of course, ethical considerations to be made when considering the R2P doctrine that proponents of the doctrine would rather not be discussed: these include the very real risk that even when R2P appears justified, “humanitarian intervention has negative consequences which overrule its noble intentions”[footnoteRef:4]—case in point being the situation of Libya today now serving as a failed state following the Western campaign to end the reign of Gaddafi. [2: Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocities (Brookings Institute, 2008), 2.] [3: Piero Gleijeses, "Ships in the Night: the CIA, the White House and the Bay of Pigs." Journal of Latin American Studies 27, no. 1 (1995), 3.] [4: Jennifer Welsh, "Taking consequences seriously: Objections to humanitarian intervention." Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (2003), 8.]
Evans argues, however, that R2P “was designed for pragmatists rather than purists, with full knowledge of the messy reality of real-world state motivations and behavior.”[footnoteRef:5] By acknowledging that negative consequences can occur, Evans attempts to justify humanitarian intervention and the deaths of multitudes, the destruction of infrastructure, and the displaced masses (as seen in the Syrian conflict, with hundreds of thousands of immigrants streaming into Europe and creating a socio-political crisis there as well) by defining this as collateral damage and to be expected. The decidedly idealized concept of protecting people abroad that underscores R2P vanishes in an instant in Evans’ “pragmatic” view of intervention (typically accompanied by aerial bombardment that has little to do with protecting innocent people on the ground). Evans notes that the UN was quick to adopt the R2P doctrine...…invasions and chaotic occupations” are common outcomes of R2P in action.[footnoteRef:10] [7: Gareth Evans, “R2P: The Next Ten Years,” Oxford Handbook on The Responsibility to Protect 2015, 4.] [8: Alex J. Bellamy, “The Responsibility to Protect,” Security Studies, 489.] [9: Justin Morris, "Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum." International Affairs 89, no. 5 (2013), 1267.] [10: Ramesh Thakur, “The Responsibility to Protect at 15,” International Affairs 92: 2 (2016), 422.]
In the final analysis, R2P may have some noble ideals and principles at its foundation, but the outcomes, as shown by Thakur and the motives as shown by Gleijeses, indicate that these noble ideals and principles fall prey to the rather pragmatic sentiment of those who, like Evans, are willing to accept more than a few casualties in the ultimate quest to alleviate the suffering of the innocent overall. There is, at root, a rather utilitarian philosophical position being used by the advocates of R2P. Those who oppose it or at least view it from another perspective (the perspective of outcome) may also employ the utilitarian or even the deontological position to make their point. Those who focus on the actual outcome of R2P tend to take the…
International Norms Such as the R2P (Right to Protect) Conflict with the Cultural Claims of Individual States in Matters of Human Rights? The objective of this study is to answer as to whether international norms such as the R2P conflict with the cultural claims of individual states in matters of human rights. It is reported that there has been a failure of the world in protecting victims of "mass atrocities" and
Abstract This paper looks at the public policy of R2P and humanitarian intervention abroad, which serves as a major drain on American resources and benefits a foreign country more than it does the U.S. The money spent on these wars waged under the banner of R2P could be better spent on projects at home. The solution to this flawed policy is to address the elephant in the room, which is the
interventionism from the perspective of realism vs. idealism. Realism is defined in relationship to states' national interests whereas idealism is defined in relation to the UN's Responsibility to Protect doctrine -- a doctrine heavily influenced by Western rhetoric over the past decade. By addressing the question of interventionism from this standpoint, by way of a case study of Libya and Syria, a picture of the realistic implications of "humanitarian
Even if it, the tyranny of the majority would challenge the idea that sovereignty should be the utmost principle by which the world's people guide itself. Conclusion The United Nations has developed the R2P concept on the basis of its philosophical vision for the world. The organic development of sovereignty in couched in the ideal of control over territories by the people who live there. When the latter condition does not
The convention entitles those who have not attained 18 years to special protection. State parties admitting those under the age of 18 into their national armed forces under voluntary recruitment must ensure that such recruitments are genuinely voluntary. Informed consent of the parents of such recruits has to be sought. Recruits have to be fully informed of their engagements in such military service. The protocol forbids armed groups that
With the rise in popularity of Raila Odinga, who is a member of the Luo tribe, it was felt that a more populist government might be in Kenya's future. Thus, when Kibaki was declared the winner under what many considered suspicious circumstances the frustrations of many years percolated into mass violence. The violence that erupted was the result of a lack of ethnical pluralism within Kenya. As pointed out earlier,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now