What constitutes a ‘Manifest Failing’? Ambiguous and inconsistent terminology and the Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

Paragraph 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document (WSOD) stipulates that the international community is prepared to respond on a ‘case-by-case basis’ in a ‘timely and decisive manner’ when ‘national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations’ from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. But what constitutes a ‘manifest failing’? Ten years on from the WSOD, it is evident that there is a large amount of ambiguity and inconsistency in how this term is interpreted and applied. This article highlights the confusion and complexity within the discourse prior to putting forward five policy prescriptions. In so doing, it argues that a more informed understanding of the concept will, primarily, rectify the problems of ambiguity and inconsistency and, secondarily, may help address fears of Great Power manipulation and assist in delegitimising misuse of the R2P.