| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The use of force-no matter how benevolent, enlightened, or impartial in intent-has dramatic consequences. It shapes the struggle for power and helps to determine the outcome of political contests, which is why it is inherently controversial. It is why international debates about Libya-the first road test of the Responsibility to Protect's (R2P) coercive element (also known as Pillar Three)-were understandably contentious. Pillar Three is defined as "the responsibility of Member States to respond collectively in a timely and decisive manner when a State is manifestly failing to provide?…?protection."1 While peaceful means of response are primarily preferred, should that prove inadequate to ensure protection, the international community should use more robust action: "no strategy for fulfilling the responsibility to protect would be complete without the possibility of collective enforcement measures, including through sanctions or coercive military action in extreme cases.
|