Protection of Civilians, Responsibility to Protect, and Humanitarian Intervention: Conceptual and Normative Interactions

The chapter finds that humanitarian intervention is now a largely abandoned idea, but one still necessary in the absence of Security Council reform. It argues that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine has failed to lead to real change, the selectivity of its application has fuelled mistrust, and it is not capable of crystallizing into an effective obligation in light of the veto embedded in the UN Charter. The protection of civilians mandate has, however, had some successes where the Responsibility to Protect has been less able. The UN membership?s acceptance of the protection-of-civilians mandate has rendered it the foundation stone for the use of force under the Charter, and has made the UN?s intervention in conflicts more palatable. The chapter argues that the protection of civilians mandate represents a fundamental trend in global governance and use of force for humanitarian and human rights purposes by the UN, and a recalibration of the Security Council?s powers under the Charter.