Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBellamy, Alexen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T10:17:52Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T10:17:52Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2011-03-04T03:17:07Z
dc.identifier.issn08926794en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.xen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/36776
dc.description.abstractThe Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has become a prominent feature in international debates about preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities. Since its adoption in 2005, it has been discussed in relation to a dozen major crises and been the subject of discussion at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. This article takes stock of the past five years and examines three questions about RtoP: What is its function? Is it a norm, and, if so, what sort? And what contribution has it made to the prevention of atrocities and protection of vulnerable populations? In relation to the first, it argues that RtoP is commonly conceptualized as fulfilling one of two functions (a framework for a policy agenda and a speech-act meant to generate the will to intervene), but that these two functions are incompatible. In relation to the second question, it argues that RtoP is best thought of as two sets of norms relating to the responsibilities of states to their own populations and international responsibilities. The first set are well defined and established, the second though are indeterminate and lack compliance-pull, limiting the extent to which RtoP can serve as a catalyst for action. This, the article argues, is reflected in RtoP's track record thus far. RtoP has failed to generate additional political will in response to atrocity crimes but it has proven useful as both a diplomatic tool and as a policy lens.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishingen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom143en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto169en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEthics & International Affairsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume24en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolitical Science not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160699en_US
dc.titleThe responsibility to protect - five years onen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, Department of International Business and Asian Studiesen_US
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record