This article examines how India understands and negotiates norms for the provision of humanitarian assistance and R2P in political emergencies. Looking at these two related but distinct spheres of action together helps illuminate India’s understanding of international order, and the nature and scope of domestic and international responsibility in protecting populations from harm and deprivation. The article argues that while R2P and humanitarian assistance have both pluralist and solidarist underpinnings, India attempts to contain the meaning and practice of these spheres of action in a manner that is consistent with a pluralist view of international order.
See for example Ramesh Thakur‘Find common grounds with critics to work out norm for “responsibility to protect” operations’, Japan Times, 28 February 2002; Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, ‘The New Politics of Protection? Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, and the Responsibility to Protect’International Affairs87/4 (2011).
Jeffrey W. Legro‘Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the failure of “internationalism”’International Organization51/1 (1997) and Jeffrey T. Checkel ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’ World Politics 50/2 (1998).
Prashanth Parameswaran‘India’s Position on Syria: a tight balancing act’East Asia Forum8 March 2012. Available at http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/03/08/indias-position-on-syria-a-tight-balancing-act/ accessed on 5 January 2014.
See for example Gumisai Mutume‘Africa Secures new Southern Partners: Controversy over Aid, Investment from China and India’Africa RenewalOctober 2008. Available at http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/october-2008/africa-secures-new-southern-partners accessed 6 January 2014.