Brazil and R2P
Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12960916 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kai Michael Kenkel (0000-0003-4356-9304, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 5-32 |
| Publication date | 2012-01-01 |
| 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 | 10.1163/187598412x619649 |
| OpenAlex | W2019973695 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 23 |
| References cited | 1 |
This article traces the reaction of the Brazilian government to the emergence of the R2P norm. After an initial period of rejection, followed by a period of absence from UN debates, Brazil has recently engaged cautiously with R2P. The article gives a detailed analysis of the origins of the Latin American system of legal protections that resulted in an interpretation in the region that reduces sovereignty almost exclusively to the inviolability of borders. This interpretation is at the heart of Brazil’s rejection of R2P’s tenets regarding the use of force. It does not stand in the way, however, of its contributing decisively to the other two pillars identified in the Secretary General’s Implementation Report. The paper identifies two main factors that motivated the gradual opening of the Brazilian foreign policy establishment to R2P, one external and one internal. Externally, the strong endorsement of R2P in the World Summit Outcome Document did much to facilitate Brazil’s rapprochement with the concept. Concomitantly, Brazil’s rise as an emerging power has increasingly created tensions between regional traditions and still-dominant Northern views of the responsibilities that accompany Brazil’s global aspirations. Brazil is in the process of developing an approach to peace operations and intervention that defines responsibility separately from the use of force, obviating the effects of this perceived tension. As a result, Brazil has become an important peacekeeping troop contributor and is no longer a vocal detractor of R2P. It has begun adapting the non-military elements of the principle to its policy goals and looks set to be an active and important participant in the concept’s further implementation
Geography · Government (linguistics · Human rights · Humanitarian intervention · International community · International law · Interpretation (philosophy · Intervention (counseling · Latin Americans · Norm (philosophy · Peacekeeping · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Responsibility to Protect · Sovereignty · Summit · Use of force · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Psychology
Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting Initiative
Rising Powers in World Politics
Responsibility to Protect” and the BRICS
Emerging Powers and the Notion of International Responsibility
R2p
What prospects for common humanity in a divided world? The scope for RtoP in a transitional international order
By all necessary means? Emerging powers and the use of force in peacekeeping
Stability abroad, instability at home? Changing UN peace operations and civil–military relations in Global South troop contributing countries
Decolonizing the Responsibility to Protect
Evolution, retreat or rejection
Emerging powers and the responsibility to protect
What doesn’t kill a norm makes it stronger? Brazil’s contestation of the responsibility to protect
Normative resistance to responsibility to protect in times of emerging multipolarity
Explaining emerging powers’ reluctance to adopt intervention norms
Grand Strategy and Peace Operations
Five generations of peace operations
Rising powers and the responsibility to protect
Brazil
On non-Western norm shapers
Crafting constraints
India and the responsibility to protect
Regulating intervention
Brazil in Minustah
| Unique citing works | 23 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,77 |
| Citation span | 2013 - 2023 (11) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 22 |