Description
The paper argues that the norm/death narrative surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) has problematic implications for both its critics and defenders. Critical claims that the norm is dead create an overly high benchmark by which to measure the norm against. The implication of which is that it allows RtoP defenders to relatively easily make the case that it is not dead. This is equally problematic, however, as this falls into the trap of downplaying the crisis facing the norm. To put this another way, norm studies only get us so far and we need to better understand the political environment in which all human right’s norms now find themselves in. Building on contemporary reassessments of the false assumptions embodied in the RtoP project, the picture presented here is far graver than is commonly found in studies that conclude the RtoP has not declined in the manner suggested by critics. Going forward, there appears to be three positions: status quo, reform, and abandon but whichever one academics choose to uphold, they must factor in, and respond to, the developments and false assumptions outlined here.
