The Legal Scope of the Responsibility to Protect, Between Controversies and Reality

Ferdinand Mbirigi

Makale detayları

The Legal Scope of the Responsibility to Protect, Between Controversies and Reality

Yazarlar:

Ferdinand Mbirigi

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.45 Issue 1, pp.89-108

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358020

pISSN:

2651-5377

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Since its establishment by the United Nations, the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity known as mass atrocities R2P has given rise to controversies. This emerging norm did not escape doctrinal and politico-diplomatic controversies like its predecessor known as the right of intervention. The question is whether R2P is a real legal norm aimed at protecting people or a political doctrine serving Western imperialism. Some states and scholars perceive R2P as a legal norm while others see it as a political doctrine with a hidden agenda. This article discusses the relevance of the arguments of both its proponents and opponents to identify a common understanding. Our starting assumption is that R2P is an autonomous norm whose application is subject to its debtors interests and power balance. Using a documentary analysis of legal instruments, judicial proceedings, official documents, and scholarly works, this research paper highlights that R2P is a relatively well-established autonomous norm gathering several existing conventional and international customary norms. It demonstrates that R2P implementation remains subject to political will, state interests, and balance of power. This clarification should contribute to R2P effectiveness and pave the way for the liability of responsible actors for failure to protect populations from mass atrocities.

 Since its establishment by the United Nations, the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity known as mass atrocities R2P has given rise to controversies. This emerging norm did not escape doctrinal and politico-diplomatic controversies like its predecessor known as the right of intervention. The question is whether R2P is a real legal norm aimed at protecting people or a political doctrine serving Western imperialism. Some states and scholars perceive R2P as a legal norm while others see it as a political doctrine with a hidden agenda. This article discusses the relevance of the arguments of both its proponents and opponents to identify a common understanding. Our starting assumption is that R2P is an autonomous norm whose application is subject to its debtors interests and power balance. Using a documentary analysis of legal instruments, judicial proceedings, official documents, and scholarly works, this research paper highlights that R2P is a relatively well-established autonomous norm gathering several existing conventional and international customary norms. It demonstrates that R2P implementation remains subject to political will, state interests, and balance of power. This clarification should contribute to R2P effectiveness and pave the way for the liability of responsible actors for failure to protect populations from mass atrocities.

 Since its establishment by the United Nations, the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity known as mass atrocities R2P has given rise to controversies. This emerging norm did not escape doctrinal and politico-diplomatic controversies like its predecessor known as the right of intervention. The question is whether R2P is a real legal norm aimed at protecting people or a political doctrine serving Western imperialism. Some states and scholars perceive R2P as a legal norm while others see it as a political doctrine with a hidden agenda. This article discusses the relevance of the arguments of both its proponents and opponents to identify a common understanding. Our starting assumption is that R2P is an autonomous norm whose application is subject to its debtors interests and power balance. Using a documentary analysis of legal instruments, judicial proceedings, official documents, and scholarly works, this research paper highlights that R2P is a relatively well-established autonomous norm gathering several existing conventional and international customary norms. It demonstrates that R2P implementation remains subject to political will, state interests, and balance of power. This clarification should contribute to R2P effectiveness and pave the way for the liability of responsible actors for failure to protect populations from mass atrocities.

 Toplulukları soykırım, etnik temizlik ve insanlığa karşı suçlar gibi kitlesel zulümlerden korumayı amaçlayan koruma sorumluluğu R2P, Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından açıklanışından beri tartışmalara yol açmıştır. İnsani müdahale hakkı olarak bilinen kendi selefi gibi, bu yeni norm da doktrin ve siyasi -diplomatik tartışmaların dışında kalamamıştır. Burada sorun R2Pnin insanları korumayı amaçlayan gerçek bir norm mu, yoksa Batı emperyalizmine hizmet eden politik bir doktrin mi olduğudur. Bazı devletler ve akademisyenler R2Pyi bir hukuk normu olarak görürken, bazıları onu gizli bir ajandası olan politik bir doktrin olarak düşünmektedir. Bu makalede, ortak bir kanaat tespit etmek üzere, ilkenin lehinde ve aleyhinde olanların argümanlarının değişik yönlerini tartışılmaktadır. Burada başlangıçtaki varsayımımız R2Pnin, uygulanışı bu yükümden sorumlu olanın menfaatlerine ve güçler dengesine tabi olan özerk bir norm olduğudur. Hukuki metinlerin, yargı kararlarının, resmi belgelerin ve akademik çalışmaların belgesel bir analizi kullanılarak, bu makalede R2Pnin mevcut birkaç ahdî ve uluslararası teamülî normu bir araya toplayan göreceli olarak yerleşik hâle gelmiş özerk bir norm olduğunun altı çizilmektedir. Aynı zamanda R2Pnin uygulanmasının siyasî irade, devlet menfaatleri ve güçler dengesine tabi olduğu da gösterilmektedir. Bunun açıklığa kavuşturulması R2Pnin etkinliğine katkıda bulunacak ve bununla yükümlü olan aktörlerin insanları kitlesel zulümlerden koruyamamaları hâlinde sorumlu tutulmalarına yol açacaktır.

Makale detayları

The Legal Scope of the Responsibility to Protect, Between Controversies and Reality

Yazarlar:

Ferdinand Mbirigi

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.45 Issue 1, pp.89-108

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358020

pISSN:

2651-5377

Global politics

balance of power

responsibility to protect

R2P boosters

R2P sceptics

R2P criticism

state logicKüresel siyaset

güç dengesi

koruma sorumluluğu

devlet mantığı

R2P’i destekleyenler

R2P’ye şüpheyle yaklaşanlar

R2P eleştirisi

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Ferdinand Mbirigi

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi: Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.45 Issue 1, pp.89-108

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2025

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001358020

pISSN: 2651-5377

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ferdinand Mbirigi

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.45 Issue 1, pp.89-108

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358020

pISSN:

2651-5377