| Summary/Abstract |
After being initially drafted in 2001 by an expert body—the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty—the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine has eventually found its way into the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome document, thereby replacing a morally controversial doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”. The paper aims, first, to point out how these two doctrines are different ethical projects. Second, recognizing that it is safer to say that the doctrine has not become a principle of law, this paper tries to situate it within the prevalent value of the international rule of law. It does so by exploring two somewhat contrasting conceptions—one more substantive in nature, which takes individuals as ultimate beneficiaries of this value, and the other, more formal in nature, which puts states in the forefront. The R2P case shows, however, that neither of them can be advanced to the full extent.
|