Abstract

As the humanitarian crisis in Syria continues, the debates surrounding the utility of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) proliferate. If R2P is a defendant on trial, it wants Alex J. Bellamy as its defence attorney. One of the most provocative aspects of Bellamy’s book is his idealism surrounding R2P’s implementation problems. Despite the reality that R2P intervention is dependent on political and prudential considerations among the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) Permanent Five (P5), Bellamy explains that this is the sacrifice for widespread consensus on R2P. In other words, where there is a failure to implement the R2P principle due to the myriad political interests and constraints of the P5, the principle still enjoys ‘buy-in’ by a large number of states. This existing commitment to the R2P principle among states, in contrast to the lack of implementation of R2P on the ground (due to political gridlock within the UNSC), exposes the principle’s fundamental weakness as a norm. This dichotomy is both necessary and troubling. Strong consensus on R2P is necessary for the principle to continue existing, but the resulting weakness of the norm requires further elaboration.