R2P and the human rights crisis in Syria

openGlobalRights guest editor David Petrasek introduces a debate about R2P and Syria.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine – commonly known as R2P – was first proposed in 2001, in the wake of NATO’s controversial intervention in Kosovo. As eventually endorsed by UN Member States in 2005, R2P provides that the international community, acting through the UN Security Council, should act decisively – including as a last resort through the use of force – to halt mass atrocities.

The divided Council’s manifest failure to do so in Syria - even in the face of mass atrocity, 100,000 killed, and millions forced to flee – calls into question the relevance of the doctrine, even as it reignites support for a more robust R2P to support non-UN authorized military action.

R2P was intended to build consensus for international action, yet no such consensus is visible as regards Syria. What future for R2P? Will a unilateral US strike further undermine the doctrine, or, conversely, prove its importance in legitimizing action when the Security Council is divided? Can a new consensus be forged to support robust action to protect civilians, and if so on what terms?


R2P - perspectives from India

By: SD Muni

Using the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to justify decisions to intervene militarily abroad is often self-serving. Countries like India are ambiguous about the ...

R2P – hindrance not a help in the Syrian crisis

By: David Petrasek
العربية | Español

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine has failed to build an international consensus for action to protect civilians in Syria. Worse, R2P’s implicit support ...

R2P down but not out after Libya and Syria

By: Gareth Evans
العربية | Español

The world’s failure to respond effectively to ongoing atrocities in Syria may mean Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is down, but it’s not out. R2P still offers a ...

Stay connected! Join our weekly newsletter to stay up-to-date on our newest content.  SUBSCRIBE