Save

Arguing Matters

The Responsibility to Protect and the Case of Libya

In: Global Responsibility to Protect
Authors:
Tim Dunne University of Queensland, tim.dunne@uq.edu.au

Search for other papers by Tim Dunne in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Katharine Gelber University of Queensland, k.gelber@uq.edu.au

Search for other papers by Katharine Gelber in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

This article analyses international negotiations over the 2011 Libyan crisis during the short weeks between the start of the uprising and the passage and implementation of un Security Council Resolution 1973. We make two arguments: first, following Risse, we demonstrate how and when argumentation around the humanitarian norm of protecting civilians mattered in these debates; second, we show that failure on the part of the supporters of the intervention on humanitarian grounds to maintain consistent and genuine argumentation in relation to that mandate is a key factor in explaining the subsequent lack of agreement about collective action inside the Security Council. We conclude that the lesson that arguing mattered in relation to Libya has been insufficiently appreciated, but needs to be better understood in order to facilitate the future traction of the RtoP norm in international negotiations.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1818 512 28
Full Text Views 664 43 6
PDF Views & Downloads 804 99 11