The responsibility to protect in international political discourse: encouraging statement of intent or illusory platitudes?

In July 2009 the General Assembly held a three-day debate on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). While many NGOs described the debate as a success, this article argues that though there was a general endorsement of the idea of a 'Responsibility to Protect', closer analysis reveals that the agreement reached was largely superficial. Neither the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document nor the 2009 General Assembly debate can be considered to constitute a reform of existing international law and even as a purely normative development the current 'consensus' on R2P is thin and marked by significant contention around certain key areas. This article argues that while these issues remain unresolved R2P's practical utility will be limited, if not negligible