Whether implementation of the R2P norm will succeed depends on its reception and acceptance among the actors involved. Although the norm was adopted at the 2005 World Summit, several challenges remain before it can be properly operationalized and implemented. Indeed, some conceptual proponents rank conceptual confusions about what R2P actually entails as being among the main challenges of implementing R2P.
This paper considers the conceptual challenges facing R2P operationalization empirically, based on the assumption that only by understanding the practical realities of implementing a new concept can we draw lessons to chart the way ahead. However, as the concept has not yet been applied by the Security Council, there is no empirical experience of R2P implementation. Consequently, this contribution takes a comparative approach, examining R2P together with its conceptual protection sibling of PoC – the Protection of Civilians. R2P and PoC share several features: both aim at securing civilians’ well-being in conflict situations, and both involve civil and military actors from UN and non-UN agencies. The Security Council reaffirmed R2P in Resolution 1674. Thematically this resolution belongs to the realm of PoC, and thus attempts to inscribe R2P into PoC’s existing protection realm. R2P and PoC differ in terms of scope: while PoC is all-inclusive in protecting civilians under imminent threat of physical violence, R2P is limited to what are defined as the four main atrocity crimes. R2P emerged to provide a more robust framework for protection in such situations than that offered by PoC.
PoC lacks a stringent definition, but can be said to aim at mainstreaming a culture of protection – that is, an awareness of protection measures and activities throughout the UN system and among other relevant actors. R2P, by contrast, is clearly defined. While a clear defiition both inscribes and excludes various actors depending on their mandate, role, and core competencies, the culture of protection rooted in PoC is more open to contextual appropriation and interpretation. The empirical presentation shows how PoC is understood among actors from the humanitarian, development and military segments. The main differences relate to the civil–military divide: humanitarian actors, claiming ownership of the protection policy franchise, are reluctant to cooperate with political-military entities, for fear of jeopardizing the neutrality necessary for them to retain access to their humanitarian space of operations.
While there is agreement on the importance of protection and PoC, R2P remains contested – both at HQ and mission level. Overcoming the civil–military cultural divide is important for concerted protection efforts – although this challenge also points up the humanitarian and moral paradox that the best way to stop violence might be to use force. The strict definition of R2P and its connotations with politics and the use of military force might have the effect of alienating humanitarian actors, thereby undermining the comprehensiveness that is so crucial to successful R2P operationalization.
