Farewell the Responsibility to Protect? False death, grave crisis, future opportunities

Abstract This article argues that the norm death narrative surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has problematic implications for both its critics and defenders. Critical claims that the norm is dead create an overly high benchmark against which to measure the norm. The implication here is that it allows R2P defenders to make the case that the norm is not dead with relative ease. This position is equally problematic, however, as it falls into the trap of downplaying the crisis facing the norm. Put differently, norm studies only advance the arguments to a limited extent and we need to better understand the political environment in which all human rights norms are now located. Building on contemporary reassessments of the false assumptions embodied in the R2P project, the picture presented here is far graver than is commonly found in those studies that conclude the R2P has not declined as critics suggest. Looking forward, three positions present themselves: defence, reform and abandonment of the R2P. Whichever one academics choose to uphold, they must factor in, and respond to, the developments and false assumptions outlined in this article.