R2P – A Problem of Inconsistency in Mass Atrocity Response in the United Nations Security Council : A Comparative Case Study of Libya, Cote d’Ivoire, and Myanmar

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine was created with the purpose of providing an implementation mechanism for the international community to halt and prevent mass atrocity conflicts, however, it is not a legally binding framework, and requires the UNSC’s engagement for its successful implementation. Whilst R2P is a rhetorically compelling international norm, it falls apart in practice. The lack of consistency in its implementation and the UNSC’s inaction to various cases of mass atrocity, which are, in principle, applicable to the doctrine, has sparked controversy. This thesis examines conflicts in which R2P has been utilized and one conflict of similar dimensions in which the principle wasn’t applied, discussing the factors that could explain the question ‘why has the application of R2P been inconsistent at halting atrocity conflicts?’. By juxtaposing two theoretical lenses, Realism and English School, and applying a comparative analysis to these three cases, the thesis establishes that state behavior is driven by preserving power and resources, when it converges with upholding international norms and values. Thus, the thesis concludes that members of the Security Council will support R2P implementation and uphold shared norms and values, only when it serves their national interests