The three broad challenges that obstruct R2P’s implementation are conceptual, institutional, and political. Most scholarly work on R2P deals with the conceptual or institutional obstacles, paying insufficient attention to the political process. In this paper I analyse the motivations behind country opposition to the responsibility to protect and make recommendations to address the drivers of R2P rejectionism. A mix of underlying variables feeds this opposition, in particular experiences with state repression, mass atrocities and external interference, tactical maneuvers by UN delegations, and state revisionism. The political context for R2P implementation is not ‘a given’, but to some extent susceptible to external influence. In order to move R2P from an aspiration into an accepted norm, advocates with significant political leverage could undermine R2P opposition where possible. Neutralising rejectionism is key to obtain a stronger consensus resolution, move R2P into the normative mainstream, and increase the pressure to formulate rapid and robust responses to imminent or ongoing atrocities.
Matteo Legrenzi‘R2P is a No-Go’Ottawa Citizen14 April 2009. Statement from Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann at the 97th Meeting of the Sixty-Third General Assembly 23 July 2009 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/ga10847.doc.htm.
Daniel Freifeld‘Tapped Out’Foreign Policy18 March 2010; Tony Halpin and Alexi Mostrow ‘Russia ratchets up US tensions with Arm Sales to Iran and Venezuela’ The Times 19 September 2008; Loro Horta ‘China on the March in Latin America’ The Asia Times June 28 2007; ‘Venezuela’s Foreign Policy in the Hugo Chavez Era: Bolivarian Integration Multipolarity’ Conference Paper Presented at annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention Bridging Multiple Divides Hilton San Fransisco San Fransisco California USA 26 March 2008.