Description
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has evolved significantly over recent decades and has resulted in the norm being connected to a much wider array of human protection responses, such as refugee protection and the supply of humanitarian aid. This shift has occurred during a time of changing global power dynamics in which a more pluralist agenda is being pushed by rising powers, one in which respect for sovereign equality remains vehemently defended. Consequently, the pivot to expand what it means to implement the R2P has also notably led to a much less vocal and collective approach to mobilisation, in which ‘least worst’ solutions and ‘quiet diplomacy’ are being used in order to avoid greater tensions between major powers. Building on constructivist norm research, this paper focuses on how evolving applicatory contestation has played a key role in shifting the norm’s purpose and function, whereby the implementation of the R2P is increasingly being connected to less intrusive forms of prevention responses, often developed and agreed outside of the UN Security Council. This has significant implications for how we conceptualise both the Security Council’s role in responding to peace and security threats and the future effectiveness of the R2P norm itself.
