The evolution of responsibility to protect through UN Security Council Action 2006-2015

Abstract

This research capstone examined the evolution of much-debated Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine in the UN Security Council through the policies, decisions, and resolutions of the UNSC. Moreover, it investigated to what extent the implementation of RtoP was successful through the UNSC in the selected cases. Particularly, this research used four cases where RtoP was invoked by the UNSC, which are Sudan, Kenya, Libya, and Syria. Even though there was an evolution in the thinking, policies, and approaches of the international community, which changed the rhetoric from “right to intervene to responsibility to protect” (ICISS 2001) between the 1990s and the 2000s, the “promise” hardly ever matched with the state practice. The capstone finds out that the main reason for this mismatch is the political interests of the UNSC P5 members, which hinders the implementation of RtoP. As a result, RtoP is failing to halt the ongoing mass atrocities in Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the world. For overcoming this situation the study suggests empowering regional organizations, international courts, and civil society.