Does the idea of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) Re-conceptualize State Sovereignty?

Abstract

The idea of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) is an emerging norm aimed at protecting civilians from mass atrocities. The R2P principle recognizes ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ and obligates states to protect civilians from harm; if the state fails to abide by its obligations, then the responsibility is transferred onto the international community. Hence the difficulty of balancing sovereignty --the fundamental principle in international relations --with R2P remains controversial. This thesis asks whether R2P is a re-conceptualization of sovereignty by looking at the concept of R2P and at its practical application. Based on the case-studies of Kenya and Libya, this thesis argues that the practical application of R2P has often diverged from its conceptual origins. The thesis also argues that while the application of R2P in Kenya illustrates a positive outcome through diplomatic negotiations, the Libya case went beyond its original mandate and resulted in regime change. Moreover, in the thesis I also suggest that the idea of R2P recognizes the obligations of sovereign states to promote multilateral diplomacy and human rights. On the basis of these case-studies and observations, my thesis comes to the conclusion that the idea of R2P does re-conceptualize sovereignty by using the concept of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ to recognize the obligations of sovereign states. However, the thesis also points out that the practical application of R2P has often resulted in imperialistic tendencies that misinterpreted the idea of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ as a ‘right to intervene’ by promoting militarism and by putting civilian lives at risk. The thesis comes to the conclusion that a proper application of the ‘Just War’ theory could advance military interventions under R2P by making the latter less harmful and less imperialistic in its application.