State Sovereignty vs. Human Rights Intervention: A Critical Analysis of Responsibility to Protect (R2p)

This paper analyzes the international norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which requires states to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity and its effect on the concept of sovereignty. Specifically, the paper examines whether R2P, agreed upon at the United Nations World Summit, challenges the rule of non-interference. The first part addresses the shift from Westphalian sovereignty to "sovereignty as responsibility" through the United Nations perspective. The second part examines the sources of R2P based on the UN Charter, decisions by the Security Council, General Assembly resolutions, rulings by the International Court of Justice, international treaties such as the Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions, and customary international law. Following that, the application of the R2P concept is evaluated, along with instances like Libya, Darfur, and Syria. Criticisms of the R2P principle from various theoretical perspectives are analyzed, such as legality concerns, double standards/selectivity problems, and regime change as a tool. Moreover, the reasons for endorsing the R2P principle, such as morality, responsibility, and an international norm, are considered. In addition, normative and pragmatic conflicts in R2P regarding consent/coercion, humanitarian intervention/national sovereignty, legitimacy/legality, and "the responsibility to rebuild" are also addressed.