UN Faces Scrutiny Over Its Responsibility to Protect Role

UN General Assembly President Philemon Yang chairs the 80th plenary session on the Responsibility to Protect. At left, Secretary-General António Guterres presents a report marking 20 years of R2P commitments.

The UN has been criticized by some Member States for overstepping the mandate of its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine during a debate in the General Assembly.

United Nations Member States held another General Assembly meeting to discuss the 20-year-old doctrine Responsibility to Protect, where many powerful members spoke out against the political contract.

On Tuesday, July 1, the General Assembly invited United Nations Member States to resume discussion about Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the doctrine meant to prevent crimes against humanity. Previously, many Member States spoke in support of the doctrine, calling for countries to reaffirm their commitment to protecting civilians and to respect the rulings of international law. Although some states shared this sentiment, other powerful representatives advocated emphatically against R2P, criticizing its inefficacy and calling for its removal.

The representative from the Russian Federation was a particularly strong critic of R2P, calling it “an instrument used repeatedly by the collective West to interfere in the internal affairs of states to replace humanitarian intervention.” Russia particularly noted the first use of R2P in 2011 during Libya’s civil war, condemning the West’s “warped interpretation” of the provisions in R2P.

This criticism is not uncommon: experts have argued for years that the UN overstepped its mandate outlined in R2P by authorizing military intervention.

In line with R2P, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the protection of civilians “by necessary measures.” This broad statement gave NATO powers the freedom to enter the conflict territory with troops. Russia was among five abstentions for Resolution 1973, alongside China, a fellow permanent member, Brazil, Germany, and India.

Calling the UN and NATO’s actions in Libya an “act of aggression against a sovereign state,” Russia went on to criticize the International Criminal Court (ICC), calling it “an instrument of the collective West.” Accusing the ICC of destroying a “once-prosperous Arab country,” Russia condemned R2P, humanitarian intervention, and the ICC as neocolonial tools to maintain Western dominance globally.

The representative from the United States of America also criticized R2P, but for very different reasons. Calling it a dangerous concept that “opens the door to selective, politicized action under the guise of humanitarian concern,” the US called the doctrine “destabilizing” to “the very international order it claims to uphold.”

Noting that intervention in conflict often is not in a state’s individual interest, the US claimed the vague concepts of collective responsibility in the document were not effective in addressing all atrocities. Using examples of China’s treatment of the Uyghur population, the military regime in Myanmar, and the current conflict in Sudan, the US said, “Some Member States must do much more to address the risks that lead to atrocities and to put an end to senseless conflicts.”

This comes at a time when UN human rights experts have criticized “the United States’ escalating attacks on the international architecture of human rights, the rule of law, multilateralism, the principles of sovereign equality and self-determination, and vital international agreements on peace and security, climate change, global justice, and international cooperation.” Many states fear America’s growing isolationist practices, while others like Russia worry that they, like other Western states, are too involved in the sovereignty of other states.

The representative reiterated, “The United States will always act in accordance with our national interest and will not subordinate our sovereignty to shifting international norms, and we encourage others to do the same.” Naming R2P as a political commitment rather than a legally binding one, he suggested that each individual state protect its own populations from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as the doctrine lays out.

Such influential Member States, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council, undoubtedly have significant sway in the UN. However, several smaller states maintained support for R2P while outlining ways it could be improved.

The representative from Ghana called R2P’s issue a “crisis of confidence” in implementation, arguing that its failures must be addressed by a reiteration of political commitment and a refusal to look away when the truth is inconvenient. Ghana emphasized a responsibility to remember the doctrine’s failures, including Libya, while moving forward to improve it as a more effective tool. He said, “When we preserve the truth of past atrocities, honor the memory of victims and confront denial, we are strengthening the foundations on which R2P stands.”

The future of R2P is unclear. Whether states will join the calls of larger states like the US and Russia, calling for the doctrine’s end, or whether they will, as Ghana said, reaffirm shared humanity with the principle, the decision will undoubtedly affect the normative culture of multilateral action in the face of humanitarian crises.