This article draws on non-Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) research into expectations to argue that in the aftermath of the intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria scholars have to manage RtoP expectations. In so doing, it introduces four types of expectations into the RtoP discourse: ‘expectation gaps’, ‘expectation vacuums’, ‘expectation clouding’, and ‘inherited expectations’ – the latter of which is this author’s own contribution to the discourse. To illustrate the utility of the expectations approach, the article focuses on the debate over inconsistency in order to highlight the role of expectation gaps and inherited expectations. Going forward, it calls for further research into RtoP expectation management to be conducted and identifies key debates which need to be addressed. Ultimately, it advances an understanding of the RtoP that is inherently more sensitive to its limitations and possibilities.
Michael Newton, ‘R2P is Dead and Done due to Response in Syria’, Vanderbilt Journal of International Law, 2013, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2013/09/newton-%E2%80%9Cr2p-is-dead-and-done%E2%80%9D-because-of-response-to-syria/, accessed 24 February 2014. See also, David Reiff, ‘R2P R.I.P’, New York Times 2011, 7 November 2011; Stewart M. Patrick, ‘rip for R2P? Syria and the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention’, The Internationalist, June 12 2012, http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/06/12/rip-for-r2p-syria-and-the-dilemmas-of-humanitarian-intervention/, accessed 24 February 2014; Mohammed Nuruzzaman, ‘The "Responsibility to Protect" Doctrine: Revived in Libya, Buried in Syria’, Insight, 15/2: 57–66 (2012).
Matthew Continetti, ‘Whatever happened to the "Responsibility to Protect"?’, Weekly Standard, 23 February 2011, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whatever-happened-responsibility-protect_552381.html, accessed 12 March 2011.
Jennifer Welsh, ‘Implementing the "Responsibility to Protect": Where Expectations Meet Reality’, Ethics and International Affairs24/4: 415–430 (2010). Cristina Badescu, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. (New York: Routledge 2011), pp. 165–167. Alex Bellamy, ‘The Responsibility to Protect Turns Ten’, Ethics and International Affairs, 29/2: 161–185 (2015).
Mark Bevir, and R.A.W. Rhodes, ‘Studying British Government: Reconstructing the Research Agenda’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1/2: 215–239 (1999), p. 224. Such thinking has been developed further through the Intepretivism in International Relations bisa Working Group (iirwg). In 2013, iirwg released its flagship volume, Mark Bevir, Oliver Daddow and Ian Hall (eds.), Interpreting Global Security (New York: Routledge, 2013).
Alex Bellamy, ‘Diplomacy and the Distractions of Protection’, Global Observatory, 26 November 2013, http://theglobalobservatory.org/2013/11/diplomacy-and-the-distractions-of-protection, accessed 11 January 2015.
Jennifer Welsh, ‘The Responsibility to Protect Principle is Not the Problem: Interview with Jennifer Welsh’, Global Observatory(2013) http://theglobalobservatory.org/interviews/641-the-responsibility-to-protect-principle-is-not-the-problem-interview-with-jennifer-walsh.html,accessed 15 December 2013.
Ruan Zongze, ‘Responsible Protection: Building a Safer World’, China Institute of International Studies,http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012–06/15/content_5090912.htm, accessed 20 June 2012. Also, Aidan Hehir ‘The Responsibility to Protect as the Apotheosis of Liberal Teleology’ in Aidan Hehir and Robert W. Murray (eds.), Libya, The Responsibility to Protect and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 44–45.