1. The Responsibility to Protect: An idea whose time has come… and gone? (‘Does R2P matter?’) Dr Graham Melling Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln

2.  Article  The purpose of this paper is to examine the question of whether, after 10 years or more of its development, R2P influences the way states behave.  Two phases of R2P’s norm emergence that must be analysed to reach a full understanding of R2P’s impact as a humanitarian intervention norm: 1.emergence of the norm and its embeddedness at international level 2.the internalisation of the norm at the state level.  It is the degree to which the norm is internalised and impacts upon domestic foreign and security policy and decision-making within key states that properly determines whether R2P matters as an international norm. Outline idea

3.  September 2015 marked the 10th anniversary of the endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the international community at the UN’s 2005 World Summit.  Since 2005 R2P has received much rhetorical recognition and associated ideational value in international discourse.  However, in spite of the prominence with which R2P has been promoted and acclaimed we are still today, after more than 10 years, questioning, if not its value as an idea then certainly its effect as an international norm.  A principal avenue of explanation for the limited effect of R2P as a norm of humanitarian intervention has been the role and effect of the politics of the United Nation’s Security Council. Intro

4.  International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).  responsibility to protect doctrine had its genesis in December 2001 with the publication of its final report entitled ‘Responsibility to Protect’.  The R2P doctrine has been an evolving concept since its first presentation to the international community by ICISS  2004 UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change  The final report of the Secretary-General’s High Level Panel endorsed R2P at the 2005 World Summit. Rise of R2P

5.  The responsibility to protect - three pillar structure: 1.Pillar I states that the primary responsibility is that of the state to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and from their incitement; 2.Pillar 2 states the international community has a responsibility to assist and encourage states to fulfil their responsibility to protect, particularly by helping them to address the underlying causes of genocide and mass atrocities, build the capacity to prevent these crimes, and address problems before they escalate. 3.Pillar 3 of R2P provides that the international community has a responsibility to take timely and decisive action to protect populations from the four crimes through diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means – AND - forceful means through Chapter VII of the UN Charter, i.e. military intervention R2P

6.  Norm dynamics  The definition of the term ‘norm’ used here is a standard of appropriate behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations  In terms of R2P this is the extent to which the idea/concept shapes state behaviour through its obligatory character.  2 aspects 1.Norm cascade at international level – broad norm acceptance. 2.Internalisation by states – internalisation includes both at international level and domestic level  The effectiveness of a norm is achieved not from international acclaim and achievement, but by the degree to which the norm is internalized by states. How assess R2P’s effectiveness?

7.  R2P has emerged as an international norm is still somewhat contested in both international law and international relations literature  Since 2005 much work done by the UN - provide greater conceptual clarity with the regular provision of detailed reports.  Since 2009 the Secretary-General has published annual reports focussed upon the matter of implementation and operationalisation of R2P. R2P: More than an idea?

8. 1.The first of these reports in 2009 was entitled ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’ 2.2010 Report: Early Warning, Assessment, and the Responsibility to Protect 3.2011 Report: The Role of Regional and Sub-regional arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect 4.2012 Report: Responsibility to Protect – Timely and Decisive Response 5.2013 Report: State Responsibility and Prevention; 6.2014 Report: Responsibility to Protect: International Assistance 7.2015 Report: A Vital and Enduring Commitment: Implementing the Responsibility to Protect R2P: Annual Reports

9.  Since 2005 States have provided much fulsome support for the doctrine within the United Nations and other international for a  For a detailed list of government statements referring to R2P please see the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect website: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about- rtop/government-statements-on-rtop  UK Ambassador Peter Wilson the UN - referred to the UK being ‘a strong advocate of responsibility to protect ever since the 2005 World Summit’ before going on to ‘reconfirm that commitment today.’ 8 September 2015 Rhetorical support for R2P at the international level amongst states

10.  R2P’s influence:  Libya and the Cote d’Ivoire in 2010-2011  R2P central to United Nation’s response to each crises  Libya: Resolutions 1970 (2011) and Resolution 1973 (2011) the Security Council made explicit reference to R2P  Cote d’Ivoire: R2P played a central role in Resolution 1975 (2011) adopted by the Security Council  R2P’s lack of influence:  R2P’s influence as a norm is not uncontested  When one considers the Security Council Resolutions in detail and the role of R2P – R2P limited R2P’s influence in practice?

11.  R2P has had a limited role within the deliberations of the Security Council with respect to the situation in Syria.  limited number of times that R2P has been cited by the Council or by states  Demonstrated in both SC resolutions and meetings  Where references to R2P this has been confined to the primary responsibility of Syria to protect its own citizens – Not to international community to responsibility to protect. R2P and Syria

12.  Libya & Syria 1 & 2  Libya - Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, Rt Hon. James Arbuthnot MP, in its enquiry report into the UK’s operation in Libya ‘the concept was paid little heed’ and ‘only made it into the pages of the committee’s final report ‘as an afterthought’’.  Syria 1 - R2P was little used as a justificatory basis for its proposed intervention and where referred to it was conflated with UK doctrine of HI.  Syria 2 – International terrorism R2P’s domestic influence: UK

13.  three situations – seem R2P matters little in the policy-making of the UK government  Yes - UK promotes significant support for R2P at the international and conceptual level  BUT in its practice in SC at international level and at domestic level there seems to be a degree of ambivalence – reflected in how R2P is articulated and explained and the degree to which it forms part of the policy debate informing decision-making. R2P’s domestic influence: UK

14.  Yes in the sense of an idea. R2P clearly remains a powerful idea. Since 2005 R2P has remained a very prominent idea within the United Nations General Assembly. There have been countless reports, re-conceptualisations and discussions regarding its operationalisation.  However, ‘does R2P matter’ as a norm? Does it matter to states in their decision-making? Picture is apparently less rosy – certainly with respect to the UK.  More work needed to build a more extensive international picture. ‘Does R2P matter?’