Humanitarian intervention: from le droit d'ingérence to the responsibility to protect

The thesis addresses the question of whether the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can be considered a consolidated norm in international society today. A consolidated norm in international society is defined here as a regularised pattern of behaviour that is widely accepted as appropriate within a given social context. The analysis is premised on the assumption that R2P could be regarded as a consolidated norm if it was applied consistently when genocide and other mass atrocities occur; and if international responses would routinely conform to core principles inherent in R2P: seeking government consent; multilateralism; prevention; and regionalism. Finnemore and Sikkink’s norm lifecycle model is used to determine the putative norm’s degree of consolidation. The analysis shows that R2P had fully emerged as a prospective norm by 2005. In-depth case studies of the international responses to crises in Darfur and Kenya serve to illuminate the findings. The author concludes that the Responsibility to Protect has not, as yet, fully consolidated as an international norm. The Responsibility to Protect has been remarkably successful at pervading the international discourse but has, as yet, been somewhat less successful at consistency in implementation in terms of adherence to its core principles as outlined above (the qualitative dimension of R2P); and it has been least successful, to date, in terms of consistency across cases in terms of resolve and tenacity. The consistency-gap may, however, gradually close – which is possible, if not likely, if R2P continues on its current trajectory