The Stanley Foundation
Seeking a secure peace with freedom and justice, built on global citizenship and effective global governance.

Haunting Past. The 1995 mass atrocity killing of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serbs is one of the historic precursors to development of the Responsibility to Protect. About 20,000 Bosnian Muslims fled the immediate aftermath of the killing.
Haunting Past. The 1995 mass atrocity killing of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serbs is one of the historic precursors to development of the Responsibility to Protect. About 20,000 Bosnian Muslims fled the immediate aftermath of the killing.
The Responsibility to Protect In Action
The debate today is about how, not whether, to protect civilians

For all the setbacks and frustrations in responding to mass atrocity crimes, the world has come a long way in the last ten years. To understand just how far, we need to remind ourselves where we were at the end of the 1990s—the decade of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo in which it became tragically clear that the catastrophes of the Holocaust of the 1940s and Cambodia in the 1970s were not unrepeatable aberrations. For all the great advances in international human rights and humanitarian law made after World War II—above all, the UN Convention on Genocide—states repeatedly ignored their legal obligations. And when it came to effective collective response to these catastrophes, the international community was impotent.

The basic problem was political. Policymaking in the 1990s was a consensus-free zone. In bitter and divisive debates in the UN General Assembly and elsewhere, a fundamental conceptual gulf opened between those, largely in the Global North, who rallied to the banner of “humanitarian intervention” or “the right to intervene,” and those, largely in the Global South, who—proud of their newly won independence, often conscious of their fragility, and remembering all too well the “civilizing missions” of the former imperial powers—argued that state sovereignty was absolute and internal events, however conscience-shocking, were none of the business of the rest of the world.

A Winning Argument
It was to find a way out of this political impasse that the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was born in the 2001 report of that name by the Canadian-sponsored international commission I cochaired. Its groundbreaking contribution was to lay the foundation for a new consensus that both the North and South could accept. Two moves were particularly crucial. The first was to use much less confrontational language—insisting that we talk not about “right” but “responsibility,” not about “intervention” but “protection,” and focus not on the entitlement of big states to throw their weight around as they saw fit, but the responsibility of every state to protect the victims of mass atrocity crimes.

The other crucial step was to make clear that R2P was not just about coercive military intervention, but a whole series of graded policy responses: prevention, both long and short term, before the event; reaction when prevention failed (starting with persuasion, escalating to nonmilitary forms of pressure like sanctions and international criminal prosecutions, and considering military force only as a last resort in extreme situations); then postcrisis rebuilding aimed at preventing recurrence.

Articulated this way, the new concept did gain remarkable international traction within a very short time—winning unanimous endorsement by the more than 150 heads of state and government meeting as the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit with a lot of the momentum coming, crucially, from Southern voices—especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. This was a spectacular achievement on paper—the historian Martin Gilbert described it as “the most significant adjustment to sovereignty in 360 years.” But what has it all meant in practice? The report card in early 2012 is overall very positive, but with some qualifications.

A Matured Principle
First, there is now almost complete consensus about the basic R2P principles: outright spoilers (states like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Sudan, and Cuba) have been routed in successive major General Assembly debates in 2009, 2010, and 2011. As Ban Ki-moon said last September, “It is a sign of progress that our debates are now about how, not whether, to implement the Responsibility to Protect. No government questions the principle.”

Second, although there was quite a deal of confusion initially about what are and are not “R2P situations,” much more clarity and consensus has emerged as successive cases have been debated—from Iraq to Darfur, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Myanmar, Kenya, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, and now Syria. It is generally agreed that they don’t involve natural disasters, human rights violations generally, or broad “human security” problems, but large-scale mass atrocity crimes (genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity) that are being committed, or feared likely, here and now.

Third, there has been much progress made in developing the institutional capacity—diplomatic, legal, civil, and military—in national governments and international organizations, to anticipate and respond effectively to R2P challenges.

Fourth, the Security Council decision in March 2011 to authorize the use of military force in Libya, saw the invocation and implementation of R2P at the sharpest end of all—when prevention had manifestly failed and a massacre was manifestly imminent. If the international community had acted as swiftly and decisively in 1994 and 1995, 8,000 lives would have been saved in Srebrenica and 800,000 in Rwanda.

A Work in Progress
Against all these positives, there is one big new negative: the paralysis of the Security Council over Syria since mid-2011—an R2P situation manifestly worse than even Libya. Part of the problem has been some breathtakingly cynical realpolitik from Russia in particular; but there has also been some understandable backlash from Libya, with much concern being expressed that the NATO-led coalition stretched its mandate beyond endurance—pursuing not just civilian protection but regime change without seeking further guidance or approval from the council. This case has been pressed most strongly by Brazil, India, and South Africa, with Brazil arguing persuasively that R2P must be complemented by another principle: “responsibility while protecting.” The better news—although it may come too late for the council to forge a productive consensus on Syria—is that the United States, United Kingdom, and France have started to listen.

The bottom line is that R2P, ten years on, does face real challenges, but they are not insuperable. The principle is firmly established and has delivered major practical results. But its completely effective implementation is going to be a work in progress for some time yet.

About the Author.
Gareth Evans is the Former Australian Foreign Minister (1988-96), President Emeritus of the International Crisis Group (2000-09), and cochair of the ICISS (2001). He is the author of the Responsibility to Protect: Ending MassAtrocity Crimes Once and For All (Brookings Institution Press, 2008).

The Responsibility to Protect, Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 110 pages. Quick view.

Before the Killing Begins: The Politics of Mass Violence video.

The R2P: The Next Decade event, including full video, audio, transcripts, as well as the post-conference policy memo.

More about the Stanley Foundation's Preventing Genocide work.

— Gareth Evans
Share: Email Facebook Twitter
Courier Courier
The latest issue of Courier  features articles on the state of securing nuclear material as the final nuclear security summit approaches in early April. It also includes a special reprint of an article from the Center for Public Intregrity, "The Stalking Threat of Nuclear Terrorism." Alex Bellamy, an expert on R2P, discusses the progress made in "Acting on the Responsibility to Protect," and three students from a global scholars conference comment about climate change. Lastly, a brief look at the foundation's Iowa Student Global Leadership conference. The full Spring 2016 issue. PDF (2.0 MB) Subscribe for FREE.

Employment Opportunities
Communications Specialist: The Stanley Foundation seeks an experienced communications specialist to join its Communications Department.

Policy Program Associate, Nuclear Security: The Stanley Foundation seeks a program associate to join its Policy Programming Department. 

Launching Global Climate Actions
The world recently looked to Paris for the most important global climate change negotiations for achieving a safer climate world: the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As a helpful reference we have compiled this summary of the major work of the Stanley Foundation and its collaborators in an active global role during the past year preparing for this historic event…and the important continuing work ahead. More.

the latest the latest
Our bimonthly newsletter is filled with resources to keep you up to date with our work at the Stanley Foundation. Each edition includes news about recent publications and stories as well as features our people and partners.

You will also find many extras, from upcoming events to multimedia resources. Sign up for the latest to stay engaged on key global issues.

Stanley Foundation Annual Conferences Stanley Foundation Annual Conferences
The Stanley Foundation holds two annual conferences, UN Issues and the Strategy for Peace Conference. These bring together experts from the public and private sectors to meet in a distraction-free setting and candidly exchange ideas on pressing foreign policy challenges.

Divided into roundtable talks, the cutting-edge discussions are intended to inspire group consensus and shared recommendations to push forward the debate on the foundation’s key policy areas.

Receive Materials Receive Materials
The Stanley Foundation publishes policy briefs, analytical articles, and reports on a number of international issues. To reduce our carbon footprint and cut waste, we almost exclusively, use electronic distribution for our publications. Sign up to receive our resources via e-mail.

Nuclear Security Video Nuclear Security Video
The Stanley Foundation produced a 13-minute video looking at what needs to be done to stop terrorist groups from acquiring enough fissile material to make a bomb. The foundation talked with over a dozen diverse and distinguished experts from the Nuclear Security Governance Experts Group and the Fissile Materials Working Group to see how today's patchwork of voluntary arrangements can be forged into a long-lasting system. Watch the video.

Watch and Learn Watch and Learn
Stanley Foundation events, talks, video reports, and segments from our Now Showing event-in-a-box series can now be viewed on YouTube. To receive regular updates on our video posts, please subscribe today.