Zahra Yazdanmehr
Bachelor’s Student in Law, Shiraz University
Introduction
The doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) may be regarded as one of the most fundamental evolutionary developments in the philosophy of international law and the United Nations collective security system since the Second World War. Emerging in response to the international community’s failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide and the atrocities in Srebrenica during the 1990s, the concept offers a bold and teleological redefinition of the traditional notion of state sovereignty. Within the classical paradigm of international law, rooted in the Westphalian order, sovereignty was understood as an absolute right and an impenetrable shield guaranteeing the state’s complete authority over its territory and population, together with the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. The doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, however, introduces an epistemological shift by conceiving sovereignty not as a privilege, but as a responsibility. Under this framework, states bear the primary responsibility to protect their populations from four atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Accordingly, where a state fails to discharge this responsibility or itself becomes the perpetrator of such atrocities, that responsibility devolves, in a secondary and complementary capacity, upon the international community.
The evolution of this doctrine cannot be examined in isolation from the traumatic experiences of the final decade of the twentieth century, when the international community’s inaction in the face of the killing of 800,000 people in Rwanda and the failure of peacekeeping forces in Srebrenica dealt a severe blow to the credibility of the United Nations and the very idea of collective security. The Kosovo crisis of 1999 further brought the tension between moral legitimacy and international legality to its height. NATO’s military intervention, undertaken without explicit authorization from the Security Council, generated a legal impasse that was subsequently characterized by the Independent International Commission on Kosovo as illegal but legitimate. In response to this profound divide, Kofi Annan, the late Secretary-General of the United Nations, posed a historic question at the Millennium Summit, drawing attention to the need to reconcile state sovereignty with the dictates of human conscience. Following this call, Canada’s establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) marked a turning point in legal scholarship on the subject. The Commission’s 2001 report, by replacing the language of a “right to intervene” with that of the “responsibility to protect,” shifted the focus from the rights of intervening states to the needs of victims. Drawing upon the ideas of Francis Deng, the Commission argued that modern sovereignty, in addition to protection against external intervention, entails positive obligations toward the security and welfare of citizens. The Responsibility to Protect thus represents not merely an instrument of intervention, but also a manifestation of international law’s broader movement toward humanization and global accountability in the third millennium.
Legal Foundations and the Status of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in International Law
The ontological character and theoretical innovation of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine rest on the second level of the concept: the secondary responsibility of the international community to protect human beings. Accordingly, the analytical foundations of this doctrine should not be sought solely in political texts, but rather in deeper debates concerning the nature of international politics and modern legal systems (Mohammadi et al., 2024: 15). Although the Responsibility to Protect is not, in itself, regarded as an independent legally binding treaty, it derives its legitimacy and authority from pre-existing legal obligations that states have already undertaken through foundational international conventions.
The first pillar of the doctrine derives directly from the obligations enshrined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as key human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This body of law requires states to comply with peremptory norms (jus cogens) and to protect civilians, including in situations of emergency and armed conflict.
From the perspective of normative hierarchy, the legal status of the Responsibility to Protect is often characterized as an emerging norm or a form of soft law. Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, although adopted in the form of a political declaration, carry considerable legal and political weight by virtue of their consensual adoption by the United Nations General Assembly, and constitute the foundation of the global consensus surrounding the principle. In this regard, the International Court of Justice, in its judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case, effectively reinforced and consolidated the legal foundations of the doctrine’s second pillar by affirming that states, subject to their capacity to influence the perpetrators, bear a legal responsibility to take positive measures to prevent genocide (Bellamy, 2015: 36).
It is noteworthy that the Responsibility to Protect does not seek to expand the inherent powers of the Security Council; rather, it emphasizes the optimal exercise of the Council’s existing authority under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. The fundamental legal challenge arises when the Security Council becomes functionally paralyzed as a result of the exercise of the veto power by its permanent members. In such situations of deadlock, some legal scholars have pointed to the potential of the Uniting for Peace Resolution and the complementary role of the General Assembly; nevertheless, recourse to coercive measures without the explicit authorization of the Security Council remains a controversial issue in contemporary international law (Upadhyay & Mehrotra, 2025: 69); in fact, operationalizing this doctrine requires a graduated process that begins with non-coercive preventive measures and, where necessary, proceeds to non-military coercive measures and, ultimately, as a last resort, to military intervention (Mousavi & Rezakhani, 2025: 5).
Meanwhile, efforts to extend the scope of the doctrine to areas such as natural disasters, climate change, or global epidemics were rejected by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2009. This precise delineation has been essential to preventing normative inflation and maintaining the doctrine’s operational focus on deliberately inflicted human atrocities, thereby avoiding the erosion of the political consensus achieved in 2005. Accordingly, in order to preserve the integrity of the doctrine and prevent the fragmentation of views regarding its scope, its application has remained confined exclusively to the four categories of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
Operationalizing the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine
In order to move from abstract concepts to functional mechanisms, Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, articulated the Responsibility to Protect doctrine in his 2009 report through three complementary and interconnected pillars. These pillars stand in an organic relationship to one another, and none enjoys hierarchical precedence over the others; rather, they are to be applied simultaneously and as mutually reinforcing components.
The first pillar rests on the fundamental principle that states, pursuant to the voluntary commitments they undertook at the 2005 World Summit, bear the primary responsibility for protecting their populations from the four atrocity crimes (GCR2P, 2009). This responsibility is, above all, preventive in nature and requires states to eliminate, through their domestic governance mechanisms, the conditions that may give rise to such atrocities. Key measures at this level include structurally combating hate speech, safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, training security forces in accordance with international human rights standards, and ensuring inclusive political participation for minorities (APR2P & GCR2P, 2023: 11-12;18). In effect, the first pillar offers a redefinition of effective sovereignty: one that derives its authority not from repression, but from its capacity to protect citizens.
Where a state is willing to fulfil its protective responsibilities but lacks the necessary means due to structural weaknesses, the international community is expected to provide supportive assistance. The ultimate objective of the second pillar is to strengthen states’ capacities to prevent the deterioration of conditions before they cross the threshold into armed conflict. Such support encompasses a broad range of measures, including the establishment of early warning systems, targeted economic assistance, security sector reform, and diplomatic mediation. At this stage, the United Nations and regional organizations play a strategic role in identifying risk indicators and reducing tensions (GCR2P, 2024).
The third pillar is undoubtedly the most contentious dimension of the doctrine. Where peaceful efforts have failed and a state is manifestly failing to discharge its protective responsibilities, or has itself become the perpetrator of atrocity crimes, the international community is required to take collective and decisive action. Importantly, the response envisaged under this pillar does not necessarily entail military intervention; rather, it comprises a range of measures, including targeted sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, in extreme circumstances and as a measure of last resort, military action may be contemplated only with the authorization of the Security Council and within the framework of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
One of the indicators of the doctrine’s evolution has been the increasingly active participation of regional organizations in its implementation. The African Union has been a pioneer in this regard, incorporating into its Constitutive Act the right of intervention in grave circumstances and thereby marking a historic transition from non-interference to non-indifference. The European Union, by contrast, has placed particular emphasis on the second pillar, undertaking substantial investments in capacity-building, good governance, and preventive diplomacy in developing countries in order to prevent crises from emerging at their source (Dembinski & Reinold, 2011: 8-14). This regional engagement reflects the distribution of the responsibility to protect across different levels of the international system and contributes to strengthening its operational legitimacy.
Political Dimensions and Challenges
Although the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is recognized as an emerging norm with a distinctly ethical foundation within the fields of international law and international relations, its principal objective is to address the systematic violation of fundamental human rights within the domestic jurisdiction of states (Arashpour & Jafari, 2016: 90). Nevertheless, the operationalization of this doctrine today confronts fundamental political challenges rooted in conflicts of interest among major powers and growing distrust across the Global South. Indeed, despite its normative advantages over classical humanitarian intervention, the doctrine faces serious obstacles at the conceptual level, within the structure of the international community, and particularly at the stage of implementation (Abdi & Ramezani Ghavamabadi, 2024: 5).
One of the central criticisms directed at the operation of this doctrine is its transformation into an instrument of selective intervention. Critical approaches suggest that major powers often invoke the doctrine when doing so serves their geopolitical interests, while in comparable situations, such as the crises in Gaza or Bahrain, a form of diplomatic inaction and meaningful silence has prevailed (Alexander, 2024). This double standard has significantly undermined the doctrine’s normative legitimacy in the eyes of global public opinion and developing countries.
The BRICS countries, particularly Brazil, China, and Russia, while symbolically accepting the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, have raised serious objections to the mechanisms employed in implementing the third pillar. In 2011, Brazil advanced the concept of Responsibility while Protecting (RwP), arguing that the international community must be accountable for the consequences of its own military interventions. This approach emphasizes the need to observe a hierarchy among the three pillars, to use force strictly as a measure of last resort, and to subject military missions to close Security Council oversight in order to prevent their diversion toward regime change. China, for its part, stressing the inviolability of state sovereignty, maintains that any intervention should either occur with the consent of the host state or, where state authority has completely collapsed, be undertaken in strict conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and without imposing Western political models. Russia has likewise, on numerous occasions, invoked sovereignty as a shield against international pressure, resorting to distinct interpretations of protective intervention only where it perceives its own direct strategic interests to be at risk.
The crises in Libya and Syria in 2011 ushered the Responsibility to Protect doctrine into the most challenging period of its history. In the Libyan case, the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized the use of all necessary measures to protect civilians, marked the first military action against an independent state without its consent under the banner of this doctrine. Although the intervention initially prevented a catastrophe in Benghazi, NATO’s expansion of the operation beyond its protective mandate and its efforts to overthrow the Gaddafi regime produced far-reaching political consequences. The direct consequence of this approach in Libya was the complete paralysis of the Security Council in responding to the Syrian crisis. Feeling deceived by the Libyan experience, Russia and China vetoed successive resolutions against Damascus, arguing that sanctions could become a slippery slope toward another military intervention and regime-change operation (Evans, 2012). This persistent deadlock demonstrated that the effectiveness of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, particularly with respect to the third pillar, depends heavily on political will and the restoration of trust among the permanent members of the Security Council. In the absence of such consensus, the doctrine effectively risks being transformed from an instrument of protection into a casualty of great-power rivalry (Upadhyay & Mehrotra, 2025: 66).
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in the 2020s
As the Responsibility to Protect doctrine passed the twentieth anniversary of its adoption in 2025, the international order was confronted with an unprecedented intensification of armed conflicts and the return of egregious atrocities to the center of global affairs. The seventeenth report of the United Nations Secretary-General, entitled “Responsibility to Protect: 20 Years of Commitment to Principled and Collective Action,” presents a deeply alarming picture of the widening gap between the aspirations embodied in legal instruments and realities on the ground (GCR2P, 2025). While the 2005 consensus had raised hopes that the era of genocides such as Rwanda was drawing to a close, the bloody developments in Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ethiopia demonstrate the resurgence of overt and systematic violence against civilians. Striking figures indicate that the global population of forcibly displaced persons rose from 37 million in 2005 to an unprecedented 123 million by the end of 2024; more than anything else, this dramatic increase reflects a fundamental failure to fulfil the commitment to prevention. In areas such as Gaza and Sudan, the deliberate obstruction of access to humanitarian assistance and the weaponization of starvation have exponentially increased the risk of crimes against humanity and genocide.
The nature of atrocities in the current decade has acquired new layers of complexity under the influence of digital transformation. The widespread use of artificial intelligence algorithms for the identification of military targets, together with the promotion of hate speech in digital spaces, has created structural challenges for protective missions. In addition, deliberate attacks on critical infrastructure, including hospitals, and the targeting of journalists and United Nations personnel, reflect the normalization of violations of peremptory norms and the severe erosion of the norms of international humanitarian law (GCR2P, 2024).
The Gaza crisis in 2024 and 2025 may be regarded as a turning point in the crisis of credibility confronting the doctrine. Many actors from the Global South, including Ghana, have protested the doctrine’s structural inaction in the face of human suffering in Palestine and have characterized it as a clear manifestation of double standards and the selective approach of Western states to human rights (GCR2P, 2025). The widespread perception that the Responsibility to Protect becomes operative only when it converges with the strategic interests of Western powers has reduced the global legitimacy of this norm to its lowest historical level. In effect, the survival of the doctrine in the coming decade depends upon moving beyond instrumental approaches and returning to its original essence: the non-discriminatory protection of human dignity.
Conclusion
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, beyond being a technical and abstract legal construct, embodies a fundamental ethical struggle to redefine the value of human life within the hierarchy of the international system. Although, two decades after the 2005 World Summit, the gap between the idealism enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the harsh realities currently unfolding across the international arena appears to have widened, the doctrine nevertheless remains one of the most important global normative frameworks for holding states accountable before the international community for the manner in which they treat their own populations. The evident failures witnessed in the crises of Syria, Yemen, and Gaza should not necessarily be interpreted as signaling the decline or demise of this norm; rather, these impasses primarily reflect a crisis of political will among key actors and deficiencies in implementation mechanisms. In this regard, the Responsibility to Protect should not be regarded as a pretext for coercive intervention or as a cover for military objectives; its principal purpose is instead to foster global solidarity aimed at preventing unnecessary human suffering. The continued relevance and survival of the doctrine in the decades ahead will depend on the international community’s ability to demonstrate that responsibility constitutes a fair and non-discriminatory obligation borne by all members of the human family, rather than a strategic instrument in the hands of major powers for advancing geopolitical objectives through violent means.
In order to move beyond the current situation and restore the doctrine’s legal credibility, structural measures within legal and diplomatic forums appear necessary. The joint France-Mexico initiative calling for the voluntary restraint of the veto power in situations involving large-scale and systematic atrocity crimes constitutes one of the most serious proposals for overcoming the structural paralysis of the Security Council. Where the Security Council reaches an impasse, the General Assembly should be able, by invoking the Uniting for Peace Resolution, to formulate and put forward operational recommendations for the protection of civilians. States are required to establish R2P Focal Points within their administrative structures so that, through the continuous monitoring of risk indicators, ethnic and religious tensions can be prevented from escalating into humanitarian crises. Operationalizing the approach embodied in Responsibility while Protecting (RwP) could alleviate the concerns of developing states regarding the misuse of the doctrine for the purpose of regime change and strengthen global consensus in support of measures undertaken under the third pillar. Ultimately, structural developments in the third millennium clearly demonstrate that the concept of sovereignty has undergone a fundamental transformation; a form of sovereignty that fails to ensure the basic security and human dignity of the population under its jurisdiction will, in the modern world, face a serious erosion of its moral legitimacy, while its exercise will increasingly be subject to international legal constraints and responsibilities.
References
- Abdi, A., & Ramezani Ghavamabadi, M. H. (2024). Conceptual and structural challenges of the responsibility to protect. Journal of Legal Research, (e209599). From: https://doi.org/10.48300/jlr.2024.471528.2707
- Alexander, K. (2024, March 1), The limits of international law: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Israel and the International Court of Justice. Real Instituto Elcano. From: https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/commentaries/the-limits-of-international-law-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-israel-and-the-international-court-of-justice
- Arashpour, A., & Jafari, S. M. (2016). Role of the Responsibility to Protect in Ensuring Human Security. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 18(68), 85-102. From: https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.17350727.1394.18.68.4.8
- Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect & Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2023). A framework for action for the Responsibility to Protect: A resource for States. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. From: https://r2pasiapacific.org/files/10183/R2P_Framework2023_FinalDigital.pdf
- Bellamy, A. J. (2015). The three pillars of the responsibility to protect. Pensamiento propio, (41). From: https://www.cries.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/006-bellamy.pdf
- Dembinski, M., & Reinold, T. (2011). Libya and the future of the Responsibility To Protect: African and European perspectives (Vol. 107). DEU. From: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/32015
- Evans, G. (2012, July 20), The responsibility to protect after Libya and Syria. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. From: https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/the-responsibility-to-protect-after-libya-and-syria
- Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2009, January 12). Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. From: https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/implementing-the-responsibility-to-protect-2009
- Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2024, June 27). Summary of the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 Report on R2P, Responsibility to Protect: The commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. From: https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/summary-2024-report
- Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2025, May 30). Summary of the UN Secretary-General’s 2025 Report on R2P, Responsibility to Protect: 20 years of commitment to principled and collective action. ReliefWeb. From: https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/summary-2025-report
- Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2025, July 28). Summary of the 2025 UN General Assembly Plenary Meeting on the Responsibility to Protect. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. From: https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/summary-of-the-2025-un-general-assembly-plenary-meeting-on-the-responsibility-to-protect
- Mohammadi, K., Najandimanesh, H., & Shamlou, S. (2024). The moral responsibility of the international community and the development of the doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” in its context. Ethics in Science and Technology, 19(1), 9–18. From: http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/ethicsjournal.19.1.9
- Mousavi, S. F., & Rezakhani, A. (2025). The Responsibility to Protect doctrine in the practice of the Human Rights Council: Legal challenges with emphasis on the human rights crisis in North Korea. Journal of Law and Judicial Studies, 2(4), 257–269. From: https://ljournal.ir/index.php/ma/article/view/2792
- Upadhyay, A., & Mehrotra, A. (2025). Assessing the Efficacy of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Principle amidst the Misuse of Veto Power: a critical analysis. International Journal of Legal Information, 53(1), 64-71. From: https://doi.org/10.1017/jli.2025.10053
