In light of the post-intervention crisis in Libya, this article revisits critically the vision of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) offered in the 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) – frequently taken as the conceptual bedrock for R2P doctrine. It is argued that the perverse effect of ICISS doctrine is to replace political responsibility with paternalism. The demand that states be made accountable to the international community ends by making states accountable for their people rather than to their people. The argument is developed across five critical theses. These include claims that R2P changes the burden of justification for intervention, that it usurps popular sovereignty in favour of state power, and that it diffuses post-conflict responsibilities. The article concludes that pre-emptive ‘human protection’ efforts risk crowding out questions of systemic transformation, i.e. what kind of an international order we want to live in.
ArbourL (2008) The Responsibility to Protect as a duty of care in international law and practice. Review of International Studies34(3): 445–458.
2.
BellamyA (2003) Humanitarian responsibilities and interventionist claims in international society. Review of International Studies29(3): 321–340.
3.
BellamyA (2006) Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs20(2): 143–169.
4.
BellamyA (2009) Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5.
BellamyA (2015) The Responsibility to Protect turns ten. Ethics and International Affairs29(2): 161–185.
6.
BellamyAWilliamsP (2005) The Responsibility to Protect and the crisis in Darfur. Security Dialogue36(1): 27–47.
7.
BelloniR (2007) The trouble with humanitarianism. Review of International Studies33(3): 451–474.
8.
BermanF (2007) Moral versus legal imperatives. In: ReedCTyallD (eds) The Price of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.157–176.
9.
ChandlerD (2004) The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the “liberal peace”. International Peacekeeping11(1): 59–81.
10.
CohenJ (2004) Whose sovereignty? Empire versus international law. Ethics and International Affairs18(3): 1–24.
11.
CohenJ (2006) Sovereign equality versus imperial right. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory13(4): 485–505.
DoyleM (2003) The new interventionism. Metaphilosophy32(1/2): 212–235.
14.
DoyleMSambanisN (2006) Making War and Building Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
DuffieldM (2007) Development, Security and Unending War. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
EtzioniA (2006) Sovereignty as responsibility. Orbis50(1): 71–85.
17.
FisherL (2012) The law: military operations in Libya: no war? No hostilities?’Presidential Studies Quarterly42(1): 176–189.
18.
GrewalDS (2008) Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
19.
HarrisI (1993) Order and justice in ‘The Anarchical Society’. International Affairs69(4): 725–741.
20.
HehirA (2013) The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect. International Security38(1): 137–159.
21.
HenkinL (1999) Kosovo and the law of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’. American Journal of International Law93(4): 824–848.
22.
HuysmansJ (2008) The jargon of exception – on Schmitt, Agamben and the absence of political society. International Political Sociology2(2): 165–183.
23.
IgnatieffM (2003) Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. London: Vintage Books.
24.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001a) The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Center.
25.
Ki-moonB (2009) Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General (A/63/677). New York: UN.
26.
LaïdiZ (1998) A World without Meaning. London: Routledge.
27.
LoughlinM (2000) Sword and Scales. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
28.
LoughlinM (2003) Ten tenets of sovereignty. In: WalkerN (ed.) Sovereignty in Transition. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.55–86.
29.
LuttwakE (1999) Give war a chance. Foreign Affairs78(4): 36–44.
30.
McCormackT (2010) The Responsibility to Protect and the end of the Western century. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding4(1): 69–82.
31.
MosesJ (2013) Sovereignty as irresponsibility: a realist critique of the Responsibility to Protect. Review of International Studies39(1): 113–135.
RousseauJJ (1947) The social contract. In: BarkerE (ed.) Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume and Rousseau. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.167–253.
34.
StahnC (2007) Responsibility to Protect: political rhetoric or emerging legal norm?American Journal of International Law101(1): 99–120.
35.
StevensJ (2006) Prisons of the stateless. New Left Review42: 53–67.
36.
SuganamiH (1986) Reflections on the domestic analogy: the case of Bull, Beitz and Linklater. Review of International Studies12(2): 145–158.
37.
TanKC (2006) The duty to protect. In: NardinTWilliamsMS (eds) Humanitarian Intervention. New York: New York University Press, pp. 84–116.
38.
ThakurR (2002) Outlook: intervention, sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: experiences from the ICISS. Security Dialogue33(3): 323–340.
39.
ThakurR (2005) Iraq and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Dialogue7(1/2): n.p.
40.
United Nations (UN) (2008) United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines. New York: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
41.
WalzerM (2000) Just and Unjust Wars. New York, NY: Basic Books.
