Abstract
This article examines the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) and its invocation of common humanity. It argues that the RtoP needs the normative weight and work of the notion of common humanity in order to be framed as a common response to atrocity crimes. It further suggests that such a framing process points to a shift in the doctrine’s possible remit and accessibility which offers the potential for improvement, even in the face of legitimate critique and practical failure. The act of framing the doctrine as common opens up a shared discursive space, in which a communal language, platform and mandate allows for the enduring dilemmas of intervention and the enduring problem of conscience-shocking crimes against humanity to be more collectively engaged with. Thus, despite its failings, this framing of the RtoP offers avenues for enhanced empathy, legitimacy and efficacy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When we talk about practices of intervention that fall outside of the RtoP’s remit we use the phrase ‘previous practices of intervention’, while any practices governed by, or linked to, the RtoP principle are termed ‘RtoP action’.
For a more in-depth discussion of what elements define us as human, see Sussman (2014).
Psychology research has shown that appeals to common humanity reduce sub-group identification and the assignment of collective guilt by victimised groups, as well as increasing the likelihood of forgiveness demonstrated by victims of collective crimes. See Wohl and Branscombe (2005).
To illustrate this point, a search of all English language news media within the past 12 months on the phrase ‘responsibility to protect’ was undertaken using the Nexis database. The search returned over 3000 results; using the Nexis filter for only the most relevant results still yielded 984 results, and an assessment of the titles of these results confirmed the relevance of the vast majority of them. This clearly illustrates the extent to which the RtoP has become a part of media discourse.
The establishment of multiple NGOs and coalitions dedicated to research, advocacy and action surrounding the RtoP, such as the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect and its members, for example, the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, testify to this increasing civil society engagement with the concept. For a discussion on the role and influence of NGO actors within RtoP debates and practice see Van Steenberghe’s (2013) discussion of non-state actors.
Of particular importance here are the processes of debate within the United Nations, namely the six (to date) Informal Interactive Dialogues on the Responsibility to Protect held annually in the UN General Assembly since 2009, with the attendance of member states, regional organisations and civil society organisations. The annual dialogues form part of the UNGA, 2005 World Summit Outcome Document commitment to continued consideration of the RtoP in the General Assembly, and take place following the publication of the UN Secretary General’s annual report on the RtoP (see: UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, n.d.).
Academic literature on the RtoP is ever burgeoning and originates from a range of perspectives, and the publication of an academic journal dedicated solely to the RtoP – the Global Responsibility to Protect – shows the breadth and salience of this debate.
An interesting example of this kind of hybridity is discussed by Karlsrud and Solhjell (2012). They evaluate how the RtoP’s prevention tenets were adapted in the context of IDP (internally displaced person) camps in Chad, where female police officers were trained by UN staff and were understood to constitute an effective, gender-aware and context-sensitive prevention mechanism.
As an example, we point here to the establishment of National Committees for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and All Forms of Discrimination in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. These committees work closely with the UN Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect with the aim of facilitating early-warning mechanisms, preventing potential atrocity crimes, fighting impunity for such crimes and implementing educational programs aimed at peace and reconciliation, among other things (ICRtoP, 2014).
The Universal Periodic Review considers input from ‘NGOs, national human rights institutions, human rights defenders, academic institutions and research institutes, regional organisations, as well as civil society representatives’ (UN OHCHR, 2013, pp. 1–2). As another example the European Court of Human Rights ‘may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation’ at the hands of a state party to the convention (ECHR, 2010, Article 34).
Such regional centres have already been established in some regions, for example the Regional Committee for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity and All Forms of Discrimination, established in 2010 in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and the Latin American Network for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (ICRtoP, 2014).
References
Acharya, A. (2013) The R2P and norm diffusion: Towards a framework of norm circulation. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 466–479.
Annan, K. (1999) Secretary-General Presents his Annual Report to General Assembly. Press Release, SG/SM/7136, GA/9596, New York: United Nations.
Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence. London and New York: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Arendt, H. (1986) The Origins of Totalitarianism. London: André Deutsch.
Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Badescu, C.G. and Weiss, T.G. (2010) Misrepresenting R2P and advancing norms: An alternative spiral? International Studies Perspectives 11 (4): 354–374.
Bass, G.J. (2008) Freedom’s Battle: The Origin of Humanitarian Intervention. New York: Vintage Books.
Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Translated by C. Cronin. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bellamy, A.J. (2011) Libya and the responsibility to protect: The exception and the norm. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (3): 263–269.
Bellamy, A.J. (2014) The responsibility to protect and the 2014 conflict in Gaza. E-International Relations, http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/22/the-responsibility-to-protect-and-the-2014-conflict-in-gaza/, accessed 23 July 2014.
Bellamy, A.J. (2015) The Responsibility to Protect: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.
Brown, C. (2013) The antipolitical theory of responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 423–442.
Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.
Carpenter, C.R. (2005) ‘Women, children and other vulnerable groups’: Gender, strategic frames and the protection of civilians as a transnational issue. International Studies Quarterly 49 (2): 295–334.
Chalk, F.R. and Jonassohn, K. (1990) The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies. London: Yale University Press.
Conley-Zilkic, B. (2014) Rights on display: Museums and human rights claims. In: S.J. Stern and S. Straus The Human Rights Paradox: Universality and Its Discontents. London and Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 61–80.
Danner, M. (2011) After September 11: Our state of exception. The New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/oct/13/after-september-11-our-state-exception/, accessed 22 April 2014.
Dower, N. (2003) An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
ECHR (2010) European Convention on Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe.
Evans, G. (2008) The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocities Once and for All. Washington, DC: Brookings University Press.
Fine, R. (2006) Cosmopolitanism and violence: Difficulties of judgment. The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 49–67.
Finnemore, M. (1996) Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention. In: P.J. Katzenstein (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 153–185.
Fishel, S. (2013) Theorizing violence in the responsibility to protect. Critical Studies on Security 1 (2): 204–218.
Gallagher, A. (2013) Genocide and its Threat to Contemporary International Order. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glanville, L. (2013) Gaddafi and grotius: Some historical roots of the Libyan intervention. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (3): 342–361.
Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Translated by C. Lenhardt and S. Weber. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1996) The Habermas Reader. In: W. Outhwaite (ed.). Oxford: Polity Press.
Hehir, A. (2013) The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the security council, and the responsibility to protect. International Security 38 (1): 137–159.
Hilpold, P. (2012) Intervening in the name of humanity: R2P and the power of ideas. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17 (1): 49–79.
Huttenbach, H.R. (2002) From the editor: Towards a conceptual definition of genocide. Journal of Genocide Research 4 (2): 167–176.
ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa, Canada: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
ICRtoP (2014) Domesticating RtoP and the Prevention of Atrocities: How can Civil Society Engage with Existing National Initiatives? New York: International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.
Jabri, V. (2007) War and the Transformation of Global Politics. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaldor, M. (1996) A cosmopolitan response to new wars. Peace Review 8 (4): 505–514.
Karlsrud, J. and Solhjell, R. (2012) Gender-sensitive protection and the responsibility to protect: Lessons from Chad. Global Responsibility to Protect 4 (2): 223–240.
Knops, A. (2006) Delivering deliberation’s emancipatory potential. Political Theory 34 (5): 594–623.
Kurasawa, F. (2007) The Work of Global Justice: Human Rights as Practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kurasawa, F. (2009) A message in a bottle: Bearing witness as a mode of transnational practice. Theory, Culture & Society 26 (1): 92–111.
Lakoff, G. (2008) The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. New York: Viking Press.
Lawson, G. and Tardelli, L. (2013) The past, present, and future of intervention. Review of International Studies 39 (5): 1233–1253.
Linklater, A. (2007) Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. London: Routledge.
Linklater, A. (2011) International society and the civilizing process. Ritsumeikan International Affairs 9: 1–26.
Mann, B. (2014) Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marlier, G. and Crawford, N.C. (2013) Imcomplete and imperfect institutionalisation of empathy and altruism in the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 397–422.
Morrell, M.E. (2007) Empathy and democratic education. Public Affairs Quarterly 21 (4): 381–403.
Nanda, V.P. (2011) From paralysis in Rwanda to bold moves in Libya: Emergence of the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm under international law – Is the international community ready for it? Houston Journal of International Law 34 (1): 1–57.
Nardin, T. (2002) The moral basis of humanitarian intervention. Ethics & International Affairs 16 (1): 57–70.
Orford, A. (2011) From promise to practice? The legal significance of the responsibility to protect concept. Global Responsibility to Protect 3 (4): 400–424.
Pattison, J. (2011) The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (3): 271–277.
Reus-Smit, C. (2013) The concept of intervention. Review of International Studies 39 (5): 1057–1076.
Sussman, A. (2014) Why human rights are called human rights. Ethics & International Affairs 28 (2): 171–182.
Thakur, R. and Weiss, T.G. (2009) R2P: From idea to norm – And action? Global Responsibility to Protect 1 (1): 22–53.
UNGA (2005) 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. UNGA Res 60/1, United Nations General Assembly, New York: United Nations.
UN OHCHR (2013) Universal periodic review: Information and guidelines for relevant stakeholders’ written submission, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/NgosNhris.aspx, accessed 14 July 2014.
UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (n.d.) The responsibility to protect, http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml, accessed 14 December 2014.
Van Steenberghe, R. (2013) Non-state actors. In: G. Zyberi (ed.) An Institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–57.
Verdier, P.H. and Voeten, E. (2014) Precedent, compliance, and change in customary international law: An explanatory theory. American Journal of International Law 108 (3): 389–434.
Warnke, G. (1995) Discourse ethics and feminist dilemmas of difference. In: J. Meehan (ed.) Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 247–262.
Welsh, J.M. (2013) Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 365–396.
Wohl, M.J.A. and Branscombe, N.R. (2005) Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (2): 288–303.
Zyberi, G. (ed.) (2013) Sharing the responsibility to protect: Taking stock and moving forward. In: An Institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 511–530.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Papamichail, A., Partis-Jennings, H. Why common humanity? Framing the responsibility to protect as a common response. Int Polit 53, 83–100 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.32
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.32