The core and spirit of R2P is generally welcomed in the humanitarian world, as R2P represents a commitment to important established principles laid down in international law. If the intentions of R2P are fully met, it has the potential to strengthen the global legal and political framework for protection of civilians.
However, most humanitarian actors have taken care not to engage directly in the ongoing debate on the implementation and future of R2P. The potential for coercive action can be controversial for humanitarian organisations for several reasons.
The protection of civilians as a concept can become too identified with R2P as a political process and the subsequent association with the use of coercive measures.
The fear is that framing a conflict in R2P terms can create problems for access for humanitarian agencies, leaving the civilians even more exposed to abuse and violations. The Darfur case, which was one of the first conflicts to be consistently framed as a protection crisis, shows that the R2P rhetoric can go both ways. At times the Government of Sudan (GoS) responded to R2P related rhetoric by restricting access, thereby leaving vast populations without humanitarian assistance. However, at other times the GoS has used increased access as a means to ease the international pressure on itself.
There is also a risk that the focus on R2P as a political commitment – without reference to the legal obligations underpinning it, can lead to a sidelining of treaty laws that cover a range of rights and obligations. Less reference to law in UN and NGO advocacy is partly a consequence of more actors embracing the notion of protection. Some omit reference to law because of lack of legal training, or more likely, of pragmatic reasons. States will often be less sensitive to be held accountable to their political commitments than to legal obligations. However, while political commitments at times can facilitate action, they can also more easily be changed and even retracted.
The Secretary-General and other main promoters of R2P have stated that civil society organizations and individuals should play a key role in operationalizing the R2P concept. In that endeavor, a look at the lessons from the Guiding Principles for IDPs is recommended. A major achievement of Francis Deng and his colleagues was their ability to mobilize support and acceptance of these principles among governments, UN agencies, NGOs, civil society and IDP communities through a systematic and inclusive dialogue process over years. If the civil society organisations are to be mobilised to defend R2P principles and support the building of public opinion in favour of the basic elements of R2P, debates on scope and interpretations should be encouraged.
