R2P Ten Years After the World Summit
Explaining Ongoing Contestation over Pillar iii
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12960653 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Garwood-Gowers (0000-0001-6426-517X, Queensland University of Technology, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 3-4 |
| Pages | 300-324 |
| Publication date | 2015-10-30 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Responsibility to Protect (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1875-984X • E-ISSN: 1875-9858 |
| Publisher | Brill (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/1875984x-00704005 |
| OpenAlex | W2216242555 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 11 |
This article examines how and why contrasting interpretations of the international community’s role in preventing and responding to mass atrocity crimes continue to exist a decade after the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was unanimously endorsed at the 2005 World Summit. Building on recent critical constructivist insights into the fluid, dynamic nature of norms, it advances two main arguments. The first is that continuing contestation over R2P’s third pillar is a product of a combination of internal and external sources of norm dynamism. R2P’s inherently complex normative structure, coupled with several external factors, including the broader normative environment, norm implementation experiences and a shift in global power towards the brics , have contributed to a period of renewed contestation and triggered attempts to re-formulate R2P thorough Brazil’s ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ (RwP) proposal and China’s semi-official ‘Responsible Protection’ concept. The second central argument is that such contestation is affecting R2P’s distinct normative prescriptions in different ways. While resistance to the implementation of coercive pillar iii measures is currently impeding the normative progress of that component of the norm, this contestation has not prevented consensual pillar ii assistance from becoming more deeply embedded in international practice and discourse
Argument (complex analysis · Constructivism (international relations · Dynamism · Epistemology · Human rights · International community · International law · International relations · Law and economics · Norm (philosophy · Normative · Pillar · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Responsibility to Protect · Sociology · Summit · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security
Exploring the limits of localisation through the UK’s contestation of R2P’s peaceful measures in Syria
Brazil
The R2P and atrocity prevention
From liberal interventionism to stabilisation
The Responsibility to Protect
The Contemporary World Order, BRICS and the R2P+ Principle
R2P and the Pluralist Norm-shapers
A Theory of Contestation
The R2P and Norm Diffusion
The Responsibility to Protect
R2p
Whose responsibility to protect? The implications of double manifest failure for civilian protection
China and Japan’s Quest for Great Power Status
The Evolution of International Norms
Dynamics of International Norm Change
Rethinking the life cycles of international norms
Debates in China about the responsibility to protect as a developing international norm
Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,7 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2023 (8) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |