Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBreakey, Hughen_US
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Angusen_US
dc.contributor.editorStephan Fruhling and Benjamin Schreeren_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:02:54Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:02:54Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2012-03-12T05:35:38Z
dc.identifier.issn1833-1459en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/43556
dc.description.abstractAs an international norm, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has gained substantial influence and institutional presence-and created no small controversy-in the ten years since its first conceptualisation. Conversely, the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (PoC) has a longer pedigree and enjoys a less contested reputation. Yet UN Security Council action in Libya in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief the relationship between the two. UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 follow exactly the process envisaged by R2P in response to imminent atrocity crimes, yet the operative paragraphs of the resolutions themselves invoke only PoC. This article argues that, while the agendas of PoC and R2P converge with respect to Security Council action in cases like Libya, outside this narrow context it is important to keep the two norms distinct. Peacekeepers, humanitarian actors, international lawyers, individual states and regional organisations are required to act differently with respect to the separate agendas and contexts covered by R2P and PoC. While overlap between the two does occur in highly visible cases like Libya, neither R2P nor PoC collapses normatively, institutionally or operationally into the other.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent84934 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherKokoda Foundationen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.securitychallenges.org.au/index.htmlen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom39en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto50en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalSecurity Challengesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume7en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchInternational Relationsen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160607en_US
dc.titlePoints of Convergence and Divergence: Normative, Institutional and Operational Relationships between R2P and PoCen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Lawen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2011 Kokoda Foundation. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in 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