Session 3 Flashcards
What are the five structural problems Roland Paris identifies with R2P?
(1) the mixed motives problem (interventions often serve strategic interests),
(2) the counterfactual problem (it is impossible to prove an atrocity was prevented),
(3) the conspicuous harm problem (interventions cause collateral damage),
(4) the end-state problem (interventions fail to ensure stability), and
(5) the inconsistency problem (R2P is selectively applied).
Why does Paris use the 2011 Libya intervention as a case study to critique R2P?
Answer: Paris argues that the NATO-led intervention in Libya, initially justified under R2P to protect civilians, escalated into regime change. This outcome exposed R2P’s vulnerability to mission creep, strategic manipulation, and selective enforcement, reinforcing skepticism about its legitimacy.
How does Ramesh Thakur challenge Paris’s argument about R2P’s structural flaws?
Answer: Thakur argues that the problems Paris identifies are not unique to R2P but are broader challenges in international politics. He maintains that R2P is still a necessary framework for atrocity prevention and should be refined rather than abandoned.
According to Thakur, why are the challenges Paris identifies not unique to R2P?
Answer: Thakur asserts that all international interventions face political constraints, competing interests, and unintended consequences. These are not inherent failures of R2P but rather reflect the realities of global governance and the use of force.
What key factors does Alex Bellamy identify as reasons for R2P’s failure to prevent atrocities?
Answer: Bellamy attributes R2P’s failures to (1) political inaction, (2) a declining commitment to international humanitarian law, (3) the prioritization of national interests over human security, and (4) the blocking of accountability mechanisms by powerful states.
How does Bellamy explain the role of powerful states in undermining R2P’s effectiveness?
Answer: He argues that major powers selectively apply R2P, using it when it aligns with their strategic interests while ignoring crises where intervention would be politically inconvenient. Their ability to block action at the UN Security Council has further eroded R2P’s credibility.
What does Gareth Evans argue about the continued relevance of R2P despite its challenges?
Answer: Evans acknowledges R2P’s setbacks but insists it remains the best available framework for preventing mass atrocities. He rejects alternatives such as absolute sovereignty or unilateral interventions and instead calls for reinforcing R2P’s credibility through stronger political commitment.
How does Evans propose revitalizing R2P, and what role does national interest play in this?
Answer: Evans suggests emphasizing R2P’s past successes, demonstrating how atrocity prevention aligns with national interests, and engaging civil society and governments to rebuild support for the doctrine.
What role do norm entrepreneurs play in the evolution of R2P, according to Cristina Stefan?
Answer: Stefan argues that norm entrepreneurs—both Western and non-Western—have shaped R2P’s trajectory. While initial champions were Western states, non-Western actors are increasingly redefining R2P with a stronger focus on prevention rather than military intervention.
How have non-Western states like Brazil, Qatar, and Egypt reshaped R2P?
Answer: These states emphasize diplomatic, non-military approaches to atrocity prevention. Brazil, for example, proposed the “Responsibility While Protecting” (RWP) initiative to ensure R2P interventions do not exceed their mandate, reflecting a shift away from Western-led military enforcement.
Why do BRICS states oppose military interventions under R2P, according to Mohammed Nuruzzaman?
Answer: Nuruzzaman argues that BRICS states resist R2P’s military component due to (1) concerns over sovereignty, (2) historical grievances tied to colonialism, (3) distrust of Western-led interventions following Libya, and (4) their growing influence as a counterbalance to Western dominance.
How did NATO’s intervention in Libya contribute to BRICS’ skepticism toward R2P?
Answer: The Libya intervention, initially justified under R2P, resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. BRICS states saw this as evidence that R2P could be manipulated for regime change, making them reluctant to support future interventions under its framework.
What does Jeremy Moses argue about the political and moral failure of R2P in the context of Gaza?
Answer: Moses contends that R2P has been absent in discussions on Israel’s military actions in Gaza, despite allegations of genocide. He argues this selective application exposes R2P as a political tool rather than a universal humanitarian norm.
How does Moses’ critique reinforce the idea that R2P is selectively applied in global politics?
Answer: He points out that R2P has been used to justify interventions in some conflicts (e.g., Libya) while being ignored in others (e.g., Gaza). This, he argues, shows that the doctrine is driven by geopolitical interests rather than a genuine commitment to human protection.
Considering the critiques and defenses of R2P, what are the key conditions necessary for R2P to regain credibility and effectiveness?
Answer: For R2P to regain legitimacy, it must (1) address concerns over selective enforcement, (2) ensure interventions remain within their humanitarian mandate, (3) integrate non-Western perspectives on atrocity prevention, and (4) strengthen political will at the international level to act consistently against mass atrocities.
