Evolution of the BRICS countries’ approaches to the «responsibility to protect»
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.03.09
Abstract
The three-stage transformation in the framework of «humanitarian intervention - personal security - responsibility to protect (R2 P)» reflects the international community's search for the most effective forms of protecting the population from crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. The concept of humanitarian intervention turned out to be untenable, and in 2005 the «responsibility to protect» was formalized. Responsibility to protect concept was intended to become an effective tool in the field of ensuring peace and security. The article deals with the approaches of the BRICS countries, which took an active part in the development of the R2 P, to its interpretation at the present stage. The contradictory semantic content and legal non-formality of the concept make it difficult to implement it in practice and divide R2 P researchers into two main groups. The key goal of the article is to study the evolution of the positions of the BRICS countries on R2 P.
About the Authors
S. A. Bokeriya
Peoples’ friendship university of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
D. A. Sidorov
Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAS); Peoples’ friendship university of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Барановский В.Г. Россия: эволюция взглядов на "ответственность по защите" // Пути к миру и безопасности. 2018. № 1 (54). С. 115-128. DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2018-1-115-128 EDN: XYDYZV
2. Бокерия С.А. Концепция личностной безопасности в практике ООН // Вестник РУДН. Серия: Международные отношения. 2017. Т. 17, № 2. C. 312-324. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2017-17-2-312-324 EDN: YMRWFT
3. Котляр В. "Ответственность при защите" и "арабская весна" // Международная жизнь. 2012. № 9. Режим доступа: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/740 (дата посещения: 30.04.2020).
4. Павлова Л.В. Концепция "ответственность за защиту": анализ и правовая оценка // Журнал международного права и международных отношений. 2013. № 4. С. 2-8. EDN: BQNDGP
5. Худайкулова А.В. Теории безопасности третьего мира // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Международные отношения. 2016. № 3. С. 412-425. EDN: XDYCDJ
6. Bellamy A. Massacres and morality: mass atrocities in an age of civilian immunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. 392 p. 10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199288427.001.0001. DOI: 10.1093/acprof
7. Benner T. Brazil as a norm entrepreneur: the "Responsibility While Protecting" initiative // GPPi working paper. 2013. March. 11 p. Mode of access: https://www.gppi.net/media/Benner_2013_Working-Paper_Brazil-RWP.pdf (accessed: 10.05.2020).
8. Bokeriya S.A., Omo-Ogbebor D.O. Boko Haram: a new paradigm to West Africa security challenges // Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2016. Vol. 16,N 2. P. 274-284. EDN: WNHGZL
9. Dunne T., Teitt S. Contested intervention: China, India, and the responsibility to protect // Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 2015. Vol. 21, N 3. P. 371-391. DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02103003
10. Eaton J. An Emerging norm determining the meaning and legal status of the responsibility to protect // Michigan Journal of International Law. 2011. Vol. 32, N 4. P. 766-804.
11. Glanville L. Does R2 P matter? Interpreting the impact of a norm // Cooperation and Conflict. 2016. Vol. 51, N 2. P. 184-199. 10.1177/ 0010836715612850. DOI: 10.1177/0010836715612850
12. Hall I. Tilting at Windmills? The Indian debate on responsibility to protect after UNSC 1973 // Global Responsibility to Protect. 2013. Vol. 5, N 1. P. 84-108.
13. Hamann E.P., Muggah R. Implementing the responsibility to protect: new directions for international peace and security? Brasilia: IGARAPé Institute. 2013. 90 p.
14. Kozyrev V. Harmonizing ‘Responsibility to Protect': China's vision of a post-sovereign world // International Relations. 2016. Vol. 30, N 3. P. 328-345. DOI: 10.1177/0047117816659589
15. Luck E. Sovereignty, choice, and the responsibility to protect // Global Responsibility to Protect. 2009. Vol. 1, N 1. P. 10-21. 10.1163/ 187598409X405451. DOI: 10.1163/187598409X405451
16. Menegazzi S. China reinterprets the liberal peace. 2012. December. 17 p. (IAI Working Papers; N 12 (30)). Mode of access: http://www.iai.it/sites/default/ files/iaiwp1230.pdf (accessed: 29.04.2020).
17. Morris J. The responsibility to protect and the use of force: remaking the Procrustean bed? // Cooperation and Conflict. 2015. Vol. 51, N 2. P. 200-215. DOI: 10.1177/0010836715612852
18. Reinold T. The Responsibility to protect much about nothing? // Review of International Studies. 2010. Vol. 36, N S1. P. 55-78. DOI: 10.1017/s0260210510000446
19. Smith K. South Africa and the responsibility to protect: from champion to sceptic // International Relations. 2016. Vol. 30, N 3. P. 391-405. DOI: 10.1177/0047117816659596
20. Scheffer D. Atrocity crimes framing the responsibility to protect // Responsibility to protect: the global moral compact for the 21 st century / R.H. Cooper, J.V. Kohler (eds). New York: Palgrave. 2009. P. 77-98. 10.1057/ 9780230618404_6. DOI: 10.1057/9780230618404_6
21. Verhoeven H., Murthy C.S.R., Oliveira R.S. "Our identity is our currency": South Africa, the responsibility to protect and the logic of African intervention // Conflict, Security & Development. 2014. Vol. 14, N 4. P. 509-534. DOI: 10.1080/14678802.2014.930594
22. Zheng Chen. China and the responsibility to protect // Journal of Contemporary China. 2016. Vol. 25, N 101. P. 686-700. 10.1080/ 10670564.2016.1160500. DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2016.1160500
23. Zongze R. Responsible protection: building a safer world // China International Studies. 2012. June. Vol. 34. Mode of access: http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012-06/15/content_5090912.htm (accessed: 19.04.2020).
Review
Views:
121
Email this article 
Post a Comment 