Is R2P norm a legal norm?

The Responsibility to Protect is a political and ethical norm rather than a strictly legal one. It
was endorsed by world leaders at the 2005 World Summit, organized by the United Nations.
Responsibility to Protect outlines the responsibility of the international community to
intervene when a state is unable or unwilling to protect its population from mass atrocities,
including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

While Responsibility to Protect is not a binding legal treaty or convention, it has gained
significant international recognition and has been referred to in various UN documents and
resolutions. It represents a commitment to the idea that the international community has a
moral responsibility to prevent and respond to severe human rights abuses.

The legal basis for intervention in such situations is typically found in existing international
law, such as the UN charter, which allows the Security Council to authorize the use of force
for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security.

It’s important to note that the application of Responsibility to Protect is often subject to
political considerations, and there may be debates and controversies surrounding specific
interventions based on this norm.

Explain how did R2P emerge?

The concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emerged as a response to the international
community's perceived failure to prevent or stop mass atrocities, particularly during the
1990s. Several humanitarian crises, such as those in Rwanda and Bosnia, highlighted the
need for a more effective mechanism to address situations where states were unable or
unwilling to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and
crimes against humanity.

The development of R2P can be traced through several key events:

End of the Cold War (1989-1991): The end of the Cold War created a new international
context, with a shift in power dynamics and a re-evaluation of global security challenges.
The international community faced a changing landscape, and there was a growing
recognition of the need to address humanitarian crises more effectively.
1990s Humanitarian Crises: The conflicts in Bosnia and Rwanda in the early 1990s were
particularly influential in shaping the discourse around humanitarian intervention. The
failure of the international community, especially the United Nations, to prevent or stop
mass atrocities in these cases led to a sense of moral and political urgency.

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS): In 2001, the

Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty to address the tension between the principle of state sovereignty and the need
for intervention to protect human rights. The ICISS report, titled "The Responsibility to
Protect," was published in 2001 and played a pivotal role in shaping the R2P concept. It
argued for a shift from the "right to intervene" to the "responsibility to protect."

World Summit 2005: The R2P concept gained significant international attention and
legitimacy at the 2005 World Summit, where world leaders, including heads of state and
government, unanimously endorsed the principle. The Outcome Document of the World
Summit included the agreement that each individual state has the responsibility to protect its
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and
that the international community is prepared to take collective action through the United
Nations when a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations.

The emergence of R2P represented a shift in international norms, emphasizing the

responsibility of the international community to act when a state fails to protect its citizens
from mass atrocities. While R2P is not a binding legal norm, its acceptance at the highest
levels of international diplomacy has influenced discussions and actions related to
humanitarian intervention.

What is the role of R2P in the international community?

The key elements of the Responsibility to Protect are as follows:

Prevent: States have a responsibility to prevent mass atrocities, including genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The international community should
assist states in building their capacity to protect their populations and prevent the occurrence
of such atrocities.
React: If a state is manifestly failing to protect its population or is actively perpetrating mass
atrocities, the international community has a responsibility to take appropriate action. The
use of force is considered a last resort and must be authorized by the United Nations Security
Council.

Rebuild: After a humanitarian intervention, the international community has a responsibility

to assist the affected state in rebuilding and re-establishing conditions for sustainable
development.

The adoption of R2P represented a shift in the understanding of sovereignty, asserting that
the primary responsibility of states is to protect their populations, and when they fail to do
so, the international community has a responsibility to act. However, the concept has been
the subject of debates and controversies, particularly regarding the use of force in
implementing the "React" component. It's important to note that the application of R2P is not
without challenges, and the international community's response to specific situations may
vary due to political, geopolitical, and other considerations.