Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why common humanity? Framing the responsibility to protect as a common response

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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’.

  2. For a more in-depth discussion of what elements define us as human, see Sussman (2014).

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.).

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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).

  10. 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).

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1986) The Origins of Totalitarianism. London: André Deutsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Badescu, C.G. and Weiss, T.G. (2010) Misrepresenting R2P and advancing norms: An alternative spiral? International Studies Perspectives 11 (4): 354–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, G.J. (2008) Freedom’s Battle: The Origin of Humanitarian Intervention. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Translated by C. Cronin. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, A.J. (2011) Libya and the responsibility to protect: The exception and the norm. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (3): 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (2013) The antipolitical theory of responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalk, F.R. and Jonassohn, K. (1990) The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, R. (2006) Cosmopolitanism and violence: Difficulties of judgment. The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishel, S. (2013) Theorizing violence in the responsibility to protect. Critical Studies on Security 1 (2): 204–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, A. (2013) Genocide and its Threat to Contemporary International Order. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, L. (2013) Gaddafi and grotius: Some historical roots of the Libyan intervention. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (3): 342–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Translated by C. Lenhardt and S. Weber. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2012) Intervening in the name of humanity: R2P and the power of ideas. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17 (1): 49–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huttenbach, H.R. (2002) From the editor: Towards a conceptual definition of genocide. Journal of Genocide Research 4 (2): 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (1996) A cosmopolitan response to new wars. Peace Review 8 (4): 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knops, A. (2006) Delivering deliberation’s emancipatory potential. Political Theory 34 (5): 594–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurasawa, F. (2007) The Work of Global Justice: Human Rights as Practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurasawa, F. (2009) A message in a bottle: Bearing witness as a mode of transnational practice. Theory, Culture & Society 26 (1): 92–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2008) The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, G. and Tardelli, L. (2013) The past, present, and future of intervention. Review of International Studies 39 (5): 1233–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linklater, A. (2007) Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linklater, A. (2011) International society and the civilizing process. Ritsumeikan International Affairs 9: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, B. (2014) Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, M.E. (2007) Empathy and democratic education. Public Affairs Quarterly 21 (4): 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardin, T. (2002) The moral basis of humanitarian intervention. Ethics & International Affairs 16 (1): 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orford, A. (2011) From promise to practice? The legal significance of the responsibility to protect concept. Global Responsibility to Protect 3 (4): 400–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattison, J. (2011) The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya. Ethics & International Affairs 25 (3): 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, C. (2013) The concept of intervention. Review of International Studies 39 (5): 1057–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sussman, A. (2014) Why human rights are called human rights. Ethics & International Affairs 28 (2): 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, R. and Weiss, T.G. (2009) R2P: From idea to norm – And action? Global Responsibility to Protect 1 (1): 22–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, J.M. (2013) Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 5 (4): 365–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Relations, Arts Faculty Building, The Scores, St Andrews, KY16 9AX, Scotland

    Andeas Papamichail & Hannah Partis-Jennings

Authors
  1. Andeas Papamichail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah Partis-Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andeas Papamichail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.32

Keywords

Search

Navigation