The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1080-1102
Number of pages23
JournalEuropean Journal of International Relations
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

military intervention
responsibility
humanitarian intervention
militarism
refugee
Responsibility
legitimacy
citizen
community
Military

Bibliographical note

Dunford, R., & Neu, M. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention. European Journal of International Relations. © The Author(s) 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119842208

Keywords

  • humanitarian intervention
  • responsibility to protect
  • good international citizenship
  • militarism
  • mass atrocity
  • jus ad bellum
  • Good international citizenship
  • Responsibility to Protect

Cite this

@article{a8dbce8573bf4b5698dc9c39b3e72d5a,
title = "The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention",
abstract = "In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.",
keywords = "humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, good international citizenship, militarism, mass atrocity, jus ad bellum, Good international citizenship, Responsibility to Protect",
author = "Robin Dunford and Michael Neu",
note = "Dunford, R., & Neu, M. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention. European Journal of International Relations. {\circledC} The Author(s) 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119842208",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1177/1354066119842208",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1080--1102",
journal = "European Journal of International Relations",
issn = "1354-0661",
number = "4",

}

The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention. / Dunford, Robin; Neu, Michael.

In: European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 25, No. 4, 12.04.2019, p. 1080-1102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention

AU - Dunford, Robin

AU - Neu, Michael

N1 - Dunford, R., & Neu, M. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect in a world of already existing intervention. European Journal of International Relations. © The Author(s) 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119842208

PY - 2019/4/12

Y1 - 2019/4/12

N2 - In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.

AB - In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.

KW - humanitarian intervention

KW - responsibility to protect

KW - good international citizenship

KW - militarism

KW - mass atrocity

KW - jus ad bellum

KW - Good international citizenship

KW - Responsibility to Protect

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064542366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1354066119842208

DO - 10.1177/1354066119842208

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1080

EP - 1102

JO - European Journal of International Relations

JF - European Journal of International Relations

SN - 1354-0661

IS - 4

ER -