In Defense of the Responsibility to Protect

Bibliographic Data

ID14760520
AuthorsLuke Glanville (0000-0002-0235-1846, corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume41
Issue1
Pages169-182
Publication date2013-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Religious Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0384-9694 • E-ISSN: 1467-9795
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/jore.12008
OpenAlexW1901905295
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited5

This essay responds to E sther R eed's recent critique of the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) principle in this journal. It argues that R eed fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents R2P . Her critique of R2P would have served well as a critique of the earlier concept of humanitarian intervention had it been penned in the late 1990s. But most of the problems and dangers that R eed identifies are in reality the very problems and dangers that R2P seeks to overcome, and I suggest that it does overcome them quite successfully. R2P does not impose Western ideals on the rest of the world, weaken the legal restrictions on the use of force, or promote abusive interventionism. Rather, it offers a bold but carefully constructed framework that holds the promise of promoting the protection of vulnerable populations from mass atrocities

Criminology · Environmental ethics · Human rights · Humanitarian intervention · International law · International relations · Intervention (counseling · Interventionism (politics · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Responsibility to Protect · Sociology · Use of force · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub