On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, the continuing debate surrounding the future of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) norm – used to abrogate sovereignty norms in cases of human rights abuses – has once again reared its head. This series, developed in partnership with the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, explores whether R2P remains an organizing principle of international affairs or if it might irrevocably slide toward irrelevance in the coming years.
In the series
R2P in Disarray
Politics trumps any moral obligation to intervene in a conflict argue Derek Burney and Fen Hampson. Just look at Syria.
There’s Hope for R2P
But as with any emerging norm there are issues that must be overcome, says Art Eggleton.
The Security Council and the Future of Intervention
Russia’s insistence that it is protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea is the latest chapter in the debate over when international intervention is justified, says Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
R2P: A Norm of the Past or Future?
The Responsibility to Protect has been described as the fastest developing international norm in history. But has it’s moment passed?