The Concept Of Responsibility To Protect Criticism and Failures In Intervening Sovereignty

Abstract

It is the norm of the international community to protect the individuals of sovereign nations from the menace of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The concept of the three-pillar doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emerged in 2001 during the conflict between Rwanda and former Yugoslavia to promote the United Nations (UN) goal to protect the world from war scourge.  Historically, in 2011, the UN Security Council put the test of R2P to halt inhumane activities in Libya, but the intervention evolved into a regime change operation. R2P humanitarian intervention on prevention reckons on the willingness of five permanent members of the U.N Security Council (P-5). The regional actors and international organizations doubt its future after its controversial implementation in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. Firstly, this paper will examine the status of the doctrine of R2P embedded in international Law. Secondly, this research will investigate how the doctrine of R2P conflicts with state sovereignty. Thirdly, it will enquire whether the R2P intervention in Syria and Libya was successful or not. Furthermore, this essay will attempt to portray the uncertain future of the dream literature doctrine R2P in international law. The researcher will adopt the doctrinal research methodology to conduct this study. For the collection of data, the researcher will rely on primary and secondary sources of international law, scholarly articles, UN documents, the internet, and other relevant sources.