What is more important - protecting people from mass atrocity, such as a genocide and war crimes or protecting state sovereignty against interference by other states? This is one of the core controversial issues concerning the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Ten years ago, the UN General Assembly recognized the R2P, a bundle of norms for the prevention of and the reaction to atrocious acts against people. Although the acceptance of the norms has increased since then, they remain in the focus of controversial debates concerning their application, especially with regard to humanitarian interventions.
In PRIF Report No. 133 "Ten Years R2P – What Doesn‘t Kill a Norm Only Makes It Stronger? Contestation, Application and Institutionalization of International Atrocity Prevention and Response", Gregor Hofmann analyzes the discourse on the Responsibility to Protect. He differentiates between diverse aspects of approval and the contestation of the bundle of norms. Which aspects of the R2P are debated and which legitimate concerns are linked to them? The author highlights different possible paths for further development and shows how a dialogue with skeptics could contribute to the improvement and thus the strengthening of the norm.
This PRIF Report was published as HSFK-Report No. 9/2014 (Im Streit gestärkt oder umstrittener als behauptet? Zehn Jahre diplomatische Kontroversen über die Schutzverantwortung) in German.
The Report can be ordered at PRIF for EUR 10,- and is also available as free PDF download.