The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine must be applied to ensure that all individuals at risk of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing receive equal protection. Neglecting to uphold this principle constitutes a crime against humanity in itself.

The acronym R2P could be mistaken for a technical IT term or perhaps the name of a character in a Star Wars movie. But it has far more serious and critical meaning in global affairs, peace and security. R2P is the acronym for the Responsibility to Protect, an international norm which seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This is a lofty ambition for which the world must strive. However, reality has not yet come close to achieving that lofty ambition. So, what is the R2P story? And is it failing? In the light of the highest number of conflicts since World War II, the displacement and suffering of millions of innocent civilians, and escalating attrocities, it would seem that R2P is a grand plan that promised much but has delivered little.   
The R2P doctrine had its genesis in the wake of mass atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. External military intervention for human protection purposes has been controversial both when it has happened in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and when it has failed to happen in Rwanda. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) intervention in Kosovo in 1999 brought the controversy to a head. Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were divided; the legal justification for military action without Security Council authority was asserted but largely unargued; the moral or humanitarian justification for the action, which on the face of it was much stronger, was clouded by allegations that the intervention generated more carnage than it averted. The NATO allies were heavily criticised for the way they conducted the operation. 
In his Millennium Report to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2000, the then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan made persuasive entreaties to the international community to find a new consensus on how to approach the issues of intervention and sovereignty and to “forge unity” around the basic questions of principle and process involved. He posed the central question, “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica–to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?” 
In response to this challenge, the Government of Canada, together with a group of wealthy American private foundations including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Simons Foundation, and with financial and in-kind support from Governments of Switzerland and the United Kingdom, announced at the General Assembly in September 2000 the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The role of the ICISS was to deconflict the legal, moral, operational and political challenges, through consulting with the widest possible range of stakeholders and their opinions worldwide, and produce a report that would help the Secretary-General and member states, find common ground.
Responsibility to Protect, now commonly known as R2P, was unanimously adopted in September 2005 at the World Summit at the UN Headquarters in New York, attended by 170 heads of state and government. The Summit agenda was based on a series of proposals put forward by the then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his report, “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.”    

R2P is the acronym for the Responsibility to Protect, an international norm which seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. 

A key point in the Secretary-General’s report states “We must also move towards embracing and acting on the “responsibility to protect” potential or actual victims of massive atrocities. The time has come for Governments to be held to account, both to their citizens and to each other, for respect of the dignity of the individual, to which they too often pay only lip service. We must move from an era of legislation to an era of implementation. Our declared principles and our common interests demand no less.”  R2P was articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document.

2005 World Summit Outcome Document–Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Para 138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. 
Para 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
▪    Pillar One. Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. 
▪     Pillar Two. The wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility. 
▪    Pillar Three. If a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.

R2P is a norm, not a law. In essence, while international norms guide behavior based on mutual expectations and ethical considerations, international laws are formalized rules that carry legal obligations and potential consequences for non-compliance.

International Norm
▪  Definition. Informal, customary expectations about appropriate behavior among international actors (e.g., states, international organizations).
▪  Nature. Often unwritten and based on general practices or ethical standards.
▪  Enforcement. Not legally binding, but violations can lead to diplomatic disapproval or loss of reputation.
International Law
▪   Definition. A set of formal, written rules and standards that states and other international actors are legally obligated to follow.
▪   Nature. Legally binding and often codified in treaties, conventions, and agreements.
▪   Enforcement. Can be enforced through international courts, sanctions, or other coercive measures.

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) was established in 2008 by supportive governments, leading figures from the human rights field (including former UNSC Kofi Annan, former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson), as well as five of the world’s leading international non-governmental organizations (Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, Oxfam International, Refugees International and the World Federalist Movement). With offices in New York and Geneva, the role of GCR2P is focused on clarifying, advocating, and strengthening R2P. 
The GCR2P website states that R2P has been invoked in more than 90 UNSC resolutions concerning crises in Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as thematic resolutions concerning the prevention of genocide, prevention of armed conflict and restricting the trade of small arms and light weapons. The Responsibility to Protect has also been invoked in more than 80 Human Rights Council resolutions and 35 General Assembly resolutions. These resolutions and their related preventive and–as a last resort–coercive measures, have demonstrated that collective action to protect populations at risk is possible. 
Unfortunately, the invoking of R2P in all these UNSC, Human Rights Council, and General Assembly resolutions has mostly not translated into action. From the beginning, many countries and conflict experts have raised their concerns about the inherent flaws in the R2P concept. These concerns have been borne out over time as the implementation has failed to match the lofty goals. Many sceptics are now calling for a rethink. Others are going further and calling for the demise of R2P. 
Pakistan has raised concerns over the years, particularly in statements to the UNGA. Most recently, in July 2024, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Munir Akram, made a powerful statement on behalf of Pakistan at the UNGA plenary meeting on “The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Prevention of Genocide, War Crimes Against Humanity” at the United Nations in New York. The meeting constituted the seventh time that the General Assembly formally considered R2P. During the meeting, 53 UN member states and the European Union (EU) spoke on behalf of 103 countries and one observer mission.
The UN report on the Plenary Session notes that “this year’s debate took place amidst the backdrop of the highest number of violent conflicts since the Second World War, including the resurgence of violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the continued war of aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the devastating armed conflict and atrocities in Sudan. Despite national and global efforts to protect populations and confront risk factors for conflict and atrocities, violations and abuses of international law continue, and an unprecedented number of people are currently displaced by persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations.”

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect’s R2P Monitor September 2024 edition, identifies the following countries in crisis, or at imminent risk. 
▪Current Crisis. Mass atrocity crimes are occurring and urgent action is needed–Afghanistan, Central Sahel, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (IOPT), Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela. 
▪ Imminent Risk. The risk of mass atrocity crimes occurring, or recurring, is significant if effective preventive action is not taken–Central African Republic (CAR), South Sudan, Yemen, Cameroon.

Ambassador Munir’s statement identifies flaws in the R2P norm from the beginning, issues that should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian laws, and the Genocide Convention.  Yet it wasn’t. Ambassador Munir stated, “The concept of the Responsibility to Protect was advanced by some States and non-governmental organizations during the preparations for the 2005 UN Summit. It was a controversial concept from the outset. In the context of the foreign intervention in Iraq, it generated concerns that the concept was designed to open the possibility of intervention in the internal affairs of States. The 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (paragraphs 138 & 139) consciously restricted the scope of the R2P concept to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” 
The Ambassador’s statement continues, “Thus, broadly, the R2P concept merely encapsulated existing international humanitarian law. The primary responsibility for the protection rests with the State itself. Only if the national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so, can the international community take collective action through the Security Council on a case-by-case basis. This authority already exists under the Genocide Convention. The value addition was its extension to the war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity as defined in the Geneva Conventions and accompanying international humanitarian laws.” 
Highlighting the absence of attention to Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK) for R2P consideration, Ambassador Munir’s statement noted, “Two years ago, the Organization, Genocide Watch, warned of the danger of genocide in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. An army of 900,000 Indian troops has been deployed to suppress the Kashmiri's quest for freedom and self-determination. Since 1989, over 100,000 Kashmiris have been killed; 20,000 women raped; thousands made to disappear; 13,000 young boys abducted and many tortured; where all leaders seeking freedom are incarcerated. Occupied Kashmir where extra-judicial killings, collective punishments, torture and other crimes are a daily reality. Where “laws” have been imposed to deprive jndigenous Kashmiris of their properties and to induct Hindu settlers from outside and change the demography of Muslim-majority Jammu & Kashmir into a Hindu majority territory. The R2P movement must act now, if genocide and ethnic cleansing is to be prevented in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.” 
Shockingly, the endless suffering of the people of IIOJK does not even rate a mention in publications of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the key organisation with oversight of R2P. The ghosting of IIOJK is likely due to the influence of major powers. India’s significant economic and strategic influence on the global stage, particularly its partnerships with powerful countries like the United States, often deters international bodies from taking strong actions against it. 
The United Nations’ failure to invoke R2P in Kashmir or even show a modicum of concern about the plight of Kashmiris is also attributed to systemic issues within the UN and the prioritization of national interests over human rights. Strategic and trade alliances, including weapons sales, often override humanitarian concerns and this is certainly the case in relation to IIOJK. The suffering of Kashmiris is forgotten.
Like so many other grand plans of the member states of the United Nations, R2P started with good intentions. But as the old saying goes, the road to hell is oft paved with good intentions. In the almost two decades since R2P was first adopted, hell seems to be getting a little closer. 

The UNSC, which has the authority to authorize interventions under R2P, is divided on issues related to Israel and Palestine. Veto powers held by permanent members can block resolutions, preventing collective action. The application of R2P depends on the political will of powerful states. However, in the case of Gaza, the U.S. and European countries, have historically supported Israel, making it challenging, if not impossible, to achieve consensus for intervention. 

R2P has been applied inconsistently, with interventions in some crises (like Libya) but not in others (Syria, for example). This selectivity has led to accusations of double standards and undermined the doctrine’s credibility. Often, the political and strategic interests of powerful nations overshadow humanitarian motivations. For instance, the intervention in Libya was seen by some as more about regime change than protecting civilians. The intervention in Libya highlighted significant flaws in the implementation of R2P. While the initial action saved lives, the lack of a comprehensive plan for post-intervention rebuilding led to a power vacuum and ongoing conflict.
The perceived exploitation of R2P for regime change in Libya has led to resistance from countries like Russia and China against similar interventions, making it difficult to achieve consensus on protective actions in the UNSC. It is worth remembering though, that achieving consensus on anything in the UNSC is a challenge. The Security Council has failed to stop the appalling situation in Gaza where over 40,000 people have been slaughtered by Israel in less than one year. Despite the orders of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for provisional measures against Israel to prevent genocide, ensure Israeli forces don't commit genocide, and prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide, and actions in the International Criminal Court (ICC) on war crimes, the UNSC has not taken action mainly due to the U.S. exercising its power of veto. The people of Gaza are left to a terrible fate.
The UNSC, which has the authority to authorize interventions under R2P, is divided on issues related to Israel and Palestine. Veto powers held by permanent members can block resolutions, preventing collective action. The application of R2P depends on the political will of powerful states. However, in the case of Gaza, the U.S. and European countries, have historically supported Israel, making it challenging, if not impossible, to achieve consensus for intervention. 
As Gaza is considered an occupied territory, and under international law, Israel, the occupying power, is responsible for the well-being of its population. This complicates the application of R2P, which is typically invoked when a state is either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens. Further, for R2P to be invoked, there needs to be clear and credible evidence of mass atrocities. Yet despite what would seem to any sane person to be clear and credible evidence as the horror plays out before our eyes in the global media, astoundingly it is not enough to overcome the political and legal complexities in the UNSC to trigger decisive action on intervention. 
Although the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has rung the alarm bells on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 2008 and issued calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and it has fallen on deaf ears. Some of the most ardent proponents of the R2P doctrine and backers of the GCR2P, the U.S. and European countries, do not support the centre’s assessment of the situation in Gaza. They are not upholding the “responsibility to protect” in the case of the Palestinian people who are being indiscriminately killed by the Israeli forces. Instead, they continue to actively support Israel and also supply military aid including weapons. 
It is not hard to see how the challenges that Gaza is facing in attracting an R2P intervention also apply to IIOJK with India’s influence with other powerful countries standing in the way on any intervention whatsoever. The similarities are glaring. The people of Gaza and the Kashmiris are not the ‘chosen ones’ for protection. 
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine needs an urgent reevaluation, a serious reality check to ascertain whether it is fundamentally flawed beyond redemption, or can be refocused to become fit for purpose for the future. 2025 is the 20th anniversary of R2P so in the lead-up, now is the right time to get to work on either fixing it or putting it out of its misery. The following list identifies just a few of the extensive issues that must be explored fully and resolved in that process.
▪ Establishing more precise and transparent criteria for when and how R2P should be invoked can help reduce accusations of selectivity and bias. This includes defining what constitutes a “mass atrocity” and setting clear thresholds for action.
▪ Building a stronger international consensus on the importance of R2P can help ensure more consistent application. This involves diplomatic efforts to align the interests of major powers and regional organizations.
▪ Reforming the UN’ decision-making processes, particularly in the Security Council, can help overcome political deadlock. Although unlikely, this might include revisiting the veto power of permanent members in cases of mass atrocities.
▪  Holding perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable through international justice mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
▪  Building broader international support for R2P through diplomatic efforts can help overcome resistance from key players like Russia and China. This might involve engaging in more inclusive dialogue and addressing the concerns of sceptical nations.
▪ Investing in better early warning mechanisms to detect potential mass atrocities can enable quicker and more effective responses. This includes improving intelligence sharing and coordination among international organizations and states.
▪  Ensuring that interventions are accompanied by detailed plans for post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization to prevent power vacuums and ongoing violence. This requires a commitment to long-term engagement and support for rebuilding efforts.
▪  Empowering regional organizations to take a more active role in implementing R2P can enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness. Regional bodies often have a better understanding of local dynamics and can act more swiftly.
▪  Supporting local governments and civil society organizations in at-risk countries to build their capacity to prevent and respond to mass atrocities can reduce the need for external intervention.
▪  One of the biggest hurdles is the lack of political will among states to intervene in other countries’ internal affairs, especially when it might conflict with their national interests or strategic alliances.
▪ Many countries are wary of R2P because it can be seen as infringing on national sovereignty. This concern is particularly strong among states with a history of colonialism or foreign intervention.
▪ The veto power held by the five permanent members of the UNSC (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) often leads to political deadlock, preventing decisive action in crises.
▪  Interventions can sometimes lead to unintended consequences, such as escalating violence or causing humanitarian crises. This risk makes states cautious about committing to R2P actions.
▪  There is often disagreement on what constitutes a situation that warrants R2P intervention. This lack of consensus can delay or prevent action.
▪  Ensuring accountability for perpetrators of mass atrocities and providing long-term support for rebuilding and reconciliation are challenging but essential components of R2P. Without these, interventions may not lead to sustainable peace.
To paraphrase a line from George Orwell’s famous novella Animal Farm, all humans are equal but some are more equal than others. This is proving to be the case in relation to R2P. Why are the people of Gaza and IIOJK and others, suffering more because they are somehow deemed ‘less equal’? The Responsibility to Protect doctrine must be implemented in a way that all people who are at risk of becoming victims of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, are equally protected under R2P. Failure to ensure that is the case, is, in itself, a crime against humanity.

The writer is an Australian Disaster Management and Post-Conflict Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Advisor who lives in Islamabad. She consults for Government and UN agencies and has previously worked at both ERRA and NDMA.
E-mail: [email protected]