From Doctrine to Duty: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Accountability of the International Community
Session
Security Studies
Description
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was established as a global political commitment to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes when national authorities fails to protect its own population. Since its endorsement at the 2005 UN World Summit, R2P has evolved from a normative framework into a contested principle and has been marked by growing controversy and dispute over the nature and legitimacy of international involvement. This article critically examines the gap between the rhetorical commitment to R2P and the actual accountability of the international community in fulfilling its duties. Focusing on failures and limited successes in the implementation of R2P, the paper explores how political interests, geopolitical calculations, institutional paralysis, and the emphasis on sovereignty have undermined timely and effective responses. The article argues for a reconsideration of accountability mechanisms, both legal and political, within the international order. Without clearer guidelines, stronger enforcement, and collective political will, R2P risks remaining a symbolic doctrine rather than evolving into a concrete obligation to protect populations from atrocity crimes.
Keywords:
responsibility, international, protect, state, crime, citizens, security
Proceedings Editor
Edmond Hajrizi
ISBN
978-9951-982-41-2
Location
UBT Lipjan, Kosovo
Start Date
25-10-2025 9:00 AM
End Date
26-10-2025 6:00 PM
DOI
10.33107/ubt-ic.2025.298
Recommended Citation
Culaj, Gjon, "From Doctrine to Duty: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Accountability of the International Community" (2025). UBT International Conference. 5.
https://knowledgecenter.ubt-uni.net/conference/2025UBTIC/SS/5
From Doctrine to Duty: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Accountability of the International Community
UBT Lipjan, Kosovo
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was established as a global political commitment to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes when national authorities fails to protect its own population. Since its endorsement at the 2005 UN World Summit, R2P has evolved from a normative framework into a contested principle and has been marked by growing controversy and dispute over the nature and legitimacy of international involvement. This article critically examines the gap between the rhetorical commitment to R2P and the actual accountability of the international community in fulfilling its duties. Focusing on failures and limited successes in the implementation of R2P, the paper explores how political interests, geopolitical calculations, institutional paralysis, and the emphasis on sovereignty have undermined timely and effective responses. The article argues for a reconsideration of accountability mechanisms, both legal and political, within the international order. Without clearer guidelines, stronger enforcement, and collective political will, R2P risks remaining a symbolic doctrine rather than evolving into a concrete obligation to protect populations from atrocity crimes.