The Legal Scope of the Responsibility to Protect, Between Controversies and Reality

Since its establishment by the United Nations, the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity known as mass atrocities (R2P) has given rise to controversies. This emerging norm did not escape doctrinal and politico-diplomatic controversies like its predecessor known as the right of intervention. The question is whether R2P is a real legal norm aimed at protecting people or a political doctrine serving Western imperialism. Some states and scholars perceive R2P as a legal norm while others see it as a political doctrine with a hidden agenda. This article discusses the relevance of the arguments of both its proponents and opponents to identify a common understanding. Our starting assumption is that R2P is an autonomous norm whose application is subject to its debtors’ interests and power balance. Using a documentary analysis of legal instruments, judicial proceedings, official documents, and scholarly works, this research paper highlights that R2P is a relatively well-established autonomous norm gathering several existing conventional and international customary norms. It demonstrates that R2P implementation remains subject to political will, state interests, and balance of power. This clarification should contribute to R2P effectiveness and pave the way for the liability of responsible actors for failure to protect populations from mass atrocities.