Farewell the Responsibility to Protect? False death, grave crisis, future opportunities.

This article argues that the norm death narrative surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has problematic implications for both its critics and defenders. Critical claims that the norm is dead create an overly high benchmark against which to measure the norm. The implication here is that it...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Affairs Vol. 101; no. 2; pp. 483 - 501
Autor principal: Gallagher, Adrian
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Mar2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=184297249&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 184297249
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00205850
        INA
      jtl: International Affairs
      issn: 00205850
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2025
      vid: 101
      iid: 2
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        184297249
        10.1093/ia/iiae327
      ppf: 483
      ppct: 18
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
              db: hlh
              ui: 184297249
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              db: hlh
              ui: 184297249
      tig:
        atl: Farewell the Responsibility to Protect? False death, grave crisis, future opportunities.
      aug:
        au: Gallagher, Adrian
      su:
        Human rights
        Responsibility
        Tombs
        Critics
        Reforms
      sug:
        subj:
          Human rights
          Responsibility
          Tombs
          Critics
          Reforms
      keyword:
        false assumptions
        mass atrocities
        norm death
        norms
        Responsibility to Protect
        false assumptions
        mass atrocities
        norm death
        norms
        Responsibility to Protect
      ab: This article argues that the norm death narrative surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has problematic implications for both its critics and defenders. Critical claims that the norm is dead create an overly high benchmark against which to measure the norm. The implication here is that it allows R2P defenders to make the case that the norm is not dead with relative ease. This position is equally problematic, however, as it falls into the trap of downplaying the crisis facing the norm. Put differently, norm studies only advance the arguments to a limited extent and we need to better understand the political environment in which all human rights norms are now located. Building on contemporary reassessments of the false assumptions embodied in the R2P project, the picture presented here is far graver than is commonly found in those studies that conclude the R2P has not declined as critics suggest. Looking forward, three positions present themselves: defence, reform and abandonment of the R2P. Whichever one academics choose to uphold, they must factor in, and respond to, the developments and false assumptions outlined in this article.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N