The Respronsibility to Protect (RtoP) faces intense contestation. Within a rapidly evolving world order, this is only likely to increase. And absent substantive norm modification to (re-)establish genuine concensus over the meaning of the norm, RtoP faces immminent weakening. This paper suggests one such avenue of modification: reimagining RtoP's structure across four pillars instead of the existing three. It disagregates the existing third pillar across two pillars: a new fourth-pillar which contains the last resort use of collective force, in-line with the UN CHarter, and a third-pillar which retains the existing non-forcible dimensions of the international responsibility to respond. This new four-pillar RtoP poses three distinct advantages. It increases the potential for peaceful international responses to mass atrocity by addressing the wide-spread tendency to conflate the entire international responsibility to respond with the last-resort use of force; it opens broader space for reconciling divergent global perspectives on the use of force, highlighting the collective and and last-resort nature of legitimate military enforcement; and it resolves additional points of contestation over RtoP including whether the pillars are sequential or mutually reinforcing.
Policy Implications
- Policymakers and scholars must proactively address the growing legitimacy gap surrounding RtoP by fostering dialogue and reestablishing consensus within the global international community.
- In light of declining global capacities and political will to address severe human rights abuses, policymakers at national, regional, and supranational levels should explore innovative solutions to enhance RtoP implementation. This could include leveraging new technologies or forming novel coalitions.
- This paper proposes splitting the third pillar of RtoP into two new pillars: Pillar Three for non-forcible measures (diplomatic, political, and humanitarian actions) and Pillar Four for the last resort use of military force, aligned with the UN Charter. RtoP stakeholders, including national and regional focal points and the Secretary-General's Special Advisors, should initiate consultations to adopt this modified structure.
- By separating the contentious forcible component into a distinct pillar, the revised four-pillar structure aims to reduce mistrust and encourage states to engage with non-forcible measures under Pillar Three. International forums, particularly the annual General Assembly debates, should be leveraged for meaningful discussions on implementing these new pillars effectively.
- Scholars find that RtoP is at risk of imminent weakening. Whilst it is highly imperfect, it is deeply desirable to prevent the ‘decay or demise’ of RtoP. Norm modifications such as the one proposed in this paper, hold the potential to progress several stalled debates within global international society and to stimulate renewed activity.
Photo by Alex Azabache from Pexels