R2P: Implications for World Order

in Global Responsibility to Protect
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

According to supporters of R2P the principle now enjoys almost universal acceptance and the remaining challenges concern operationalization and implementation. In contrast, this article argues that R2P remains controversial both as a principle and in terms of its application, and these controversies reflect broader tensions in international politics related to international order and normative authority. Diplomatic debates related to R2P suggest that rising powers are resistant to aspects of the normative ‘rules of the game’, and that there are fundamental disagreements regarding the relationship between human rights and international order. This can be understood as a tension between pluralist and solidarist worldviews, but also a manifestation of friction regarding control of international institutions and decision-making. Although R2P is defined narrowly, therefore, this article argues that the controversies surrounding the principle must be understood within a wider political context. In conclusion, the article offers a number of suggestions as to the future of R2P based upon this analysis.

R2P: Implications for World Order

in Global Responsibility to Protect

Sections

References

3

Pu Xiaoyu‘Socialisation as a Two-way process: Emerging Powers and the Diffusion of International Norms’The Chinese Journal of International Politics5/4:341-367 (2012) p.365.

6

Alex J. Bellamy‘The Responsibility to Protect – Five Years On’Ethics and International Affairs24/2:143-169 (2010); Cristina G. Badescu and Thomas G. Weiss ‘Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?’ International Studies Perspectives 11/4:354-374 (2010).

7

Edward C. Luck‘The Responsibility to Protect: Growing Pains or Early Promise?’ Ethics and International Affairs24/2: 349-365 (2010) p. 352.

10

Ramesh Thakur‘Find common ground with critics to work out norm for ‘responsibility to protect’ operations’Japan Times28 February 2012.

12

John R. HallInternational Orders (Cambridge: Polity Press1996); Andrew Hurrell On Global Order: Power Values and the Constitution of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007).

14

Barry BuzanFrom International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2004) p.xviii.

17

Anne-Marie Slaughter‘Security, Solidarity, and Sovereignty: The Grand Themes of UN Reform,’ The American Journal of International Law99/3: 619-630 2005 p.620.

18

Barry BuzanFrom International to World Society? p.8.

19

Zhongying Pang‘China’s Non-Intervention Question’Global Responsibility to Protect1/.2: 237-252 (2009); Liu Tiewa ‘China and Responsibility to Protect: Maintenance and Change of Its Policy for Intervention’ The Pacific Review 25/1:153-173 (2012); David Capie ‘The Responsibility to Protect Norm in Southeast Asia: Framing Resistance and the Localization Myth’ The Pacific Review 25/1:75-93 (2012); Jun Honna ‘Japan and the Responsibility to Protect: coping with human security diplomacy’ The Pacific Review 25/1: 95–112 (2012).; Keokam Kraisoraphong ‘Thailand and the Responsibility to Protect’ The Pacific Review 25/: 1-25 (2012); Noel M. Morada ‘The ASEAN Charter and the Promotion of R2P in Southeast Asia: Challenges and Constraints’ Global Responsibility to Protect 1/2: 185–207 (2009). Some have suggested however that China is not fundamentally opposed to the R2P in principle; see Sarah Teitt ‘Assessing Polemics Principles and Practices: China and the Responsibility to Protect’ Global Responsibility to Protect 1/2: 208–236 (2009).

20

Paul D. Williams‘The “Responsibility to Protect”, Norm Localisation, and African International Society’Global Responsibility to Protect1/3: 392–416 (2009); Special Issue on ‘Africa’s Responsibility to Protect’ Global Responsibility to Protect 2/4 (2010).

22

 See for example Tony Blair‘Doctrine of the International Community: Ten Years Later’Yale Journal of International Affairs4/2:5-14 (2009).

24

Henry A. Kissinger‘Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order’The Washington Post2 June 2012; Amitai Etzioni ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility’ Orbis Winter (2006).

25

Alan J. Kuperman‘Mitigating the Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from Economics’Global Governance14/2: 219-240 (2008).

32

UNGA Res. 63/308 7 October 2009.

41

 See also Kai Michael Kenkel‘Brazil and R2P: Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force?’ Global Responsibility to Protect4/1:5–32 (2012).

46

Zhao Shengnan‘Beijing defends UN vote on Syria’China Daily18 Feb 2012.

47

James Traub‘Will the Good BRICS Please Stand Up?’Foreign PolicyMarch 9 2012. See also C. Raja Mohan ‘Seeing Syria straight’ The Indian Express 11 February 2012; Sandipani Dash ‘Responsibility to Protect: The Case of Libya’.

49

Mahmood MamdaniSaviors and Survivors: Darfur Politics and the War on Terror (New York: Pantheon2009).

50

Charles A. KupchanNo One’s World: The West the Rising Rest and the Coming Global Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press2012).

51

Sandipani Dash‘Responsibility to Protect: The Case of Libya’ p.7.

56

Ralph Sundberg‘Revisiting One-sided Violence - A Global and Regional Analysis’ p.22.

58

Barry BuzanFrom International to World Society? pp.49-50.

60

Anthony Burke‘Against the New Internationalism’Ethics and International Affairs19/2: 73-89 (2005) p.86.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 19 19 7
Full Text Views 19 19 16
PDF Downloads 4 4 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0