| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Most states have embraced the emerging Responsibility to Protect norm, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005. R2P obliges states to prevent atrocity crimes within their own borders and not to turn a blind eye when they occur elsewhere. However, R2P's third pillar, which permits UN Security Council-authorized coercive actions, has been controversial. A few states have rejected R2P, fearing that the third pillar might be misused, while others have localized R2P (adapting it to their own preferences) or have sought to modify it globally through feedback in continuing UN discussions. This article explains the range of responses to the third pillar of R2P and explores why states employ different types of feedback, ranging from soft feedback (which seeks to build broader support for R2P) to hard feedback (which seeks to limit R2P). The article concludes that feedback reflects both national strategic concerns and preexisting local norms. Prior normative commitments to human rights and humanitarianism reduce the incidence of hard feedback whereas normative commitments to anti-imperialism and noninterference increase the likelihood of feedback seeking to constrain R2P. States with mixed commitments (e.g., to both human rights and to anti-imperialism) may offer complex, even contradictory, feedback, reflecting a prevailing national norm hierarchy, changes to which could result in changed state responses to R2P.
|