| ID | 118956 |
| Title Proper | Sovereignty as irresponsibility? a realist critique of the responsibility to protect |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Moses,Jeremy |
| Publication | 2013. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | This article aims to cast a critical light on the concept of 'sovereignty as responsibility', which lies at the heart of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). It argues that there are two distinct strands of theorising about sovereignty, de facto and de jure, which are not often clearly distinguished in the literature. After establishing the concept of 'sovereignty as responsibility' as a de jure theory of sovereignty, the article goes on to contrast the de facto theory, based upon the sovereignty theories of Hobbes, Schmitt, and Morgenthau. I argue that the de facto theories of sovereignty, concerned as they are with unlimited power and decision as the essence of sovereign authority, can be used to highlight the lack of appreciation of power in the literature surrounding the Responsibility to Protect. This is particularly the case in relation to the just war principles of 'right authority' and 'reasonable prospects of success', both of which lie at the heart of the RtoP criteria for assessing when military interventions for human protection purposes may take place. In conclusion, it is argued that any attempt to advance the RtoP norm must engage with the problem of unlimited power in a more sustained manner. |
| `In' analytical Note | Review of International Studies Vol. 39, No.1; Jan 2013: p.113-135 |
| Journal Source | Review of International Studies Vol. 39, No.1; Jan 2013: p.113-135 |
| Key Words | Sovereignty ; Responsibility ; Morgenthau ; Sovereign Authority ; Military Intervention |