A «Responsibility» or «Duty» to Protect? Politics and the Enforcement of International Law
Are you already subscribed?
Login to check
whether this content is already included on your personal or institutional subscription.
Abstract
In this article I argue that the enforcement of international law remains hamstrung by the constitutional competencies afforded to the Permanent Five members of the Security Council; so long as these powers remain, the enforcement of international human rights law will remain highly selective and inconsistent. Though the Responsibility to Protect has emerged as a widely heralded concept, its capacity to influence international politics is profoundly diminished by virtue of its recognition of the systemic status quo. I argue that so long as the Security Council has a right rather than a duty to protect individuals from mass atrocities, they will exercise politically motivated discretion, regardless of their rhetorical commitment to concepts like R2P.
Keywords
- Responsibility to Protect
- Security Council
- Human Rights Law