The responsibility to Protect theory on US foreign Policy

Subject: Foreign policy of Major Powers

Submitted To:
Madam Mihas Majeed

Submitted By:
Muhammad Danish
BS(IR)
7th Semester
Roll No 38
Morning

Department of International Relations

University of Peshawar

Introduction:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a conceptual framework that emerged in the early 21st century,
emphasizing the global community's collective responsibility to prevent and respond to mass
atrocities. Defined by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in
2001, R2P provides a normative basis for intervention in cases where a state fails to protect its own
population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

As the international community grapples with the moral imperative of preventing large-scale human
suffering, this paper explores the application of the R2P theory to the foreign policy of the United
States. The United States, as a global power and a key actor in international affairs, holds a pivotal
role in shaping the discourse and practice of humanitarian intervention. This examination aims to shed
light on the alignment of the R2P principles with the priorities, strategies, and challenges encountered
by the US in its pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

The central question driving this analysis is whether the principles outlined in the R2P framework
resonate with the historical and contemporary actions of the United States on the global stage.
Understanding the dynamics of this alignment is crucial for comprehending the role of the US in
promoting and upholding the global responsibility to protect vulnerable populations.

This exploration is timely as the world grapples with complex humanitarian crises, geopolitical shifts,
and evolving threats to international peace and security. By investigating the connection between the
R2P principles and US foreign policy, this paper seeks to contribute to the broader discourse on
humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty, and the evolving nature of global governance.

To achieve this, the following sections will delve into the eight core principles of the R2P framework,
analyze their applicability to US foreign policy, and provide a case study to illustrate the practical
implications of these principles in a specific context. The paper will conclude with reflections on the
challenges and opportunities associated with integrating the R2P framework into the decision-making
processes of a major global actor like the United States. Through this exploration, we aim to
contribute valuable insights into the evolving landscape of international relations and the pursuit of a
more just and secure world.

Core Principles

1. State Responsibility: Assessing the US Approach to Preventing Atrocities

Within Its Borders

The first core principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework highlights the importance of
state responsibility in preventing mass atrocities. This principle posits that states have a primary duty
to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
In this context, examining how the United States perceives and addresses its role in preventing
atrocities within its own borders becomes a critical lens through which to assess its commitment to the
R2P principles.

The United States, as a sovereign nation, holds the primary responsibility for safeguarding the well-
being and rights of its citizens. Assessing the U.S. approach involves scrutinizing domestic policies,
legal frameworks, and institutional mechanisms aimed at preventing and responding to potential
atrocities. This examination extends beyond conventional military actions to encompass broader
aspects of governance, human rights protection, and conflict prevention within the domestic sphere.

Key areas of scrutiny may include:

A. Legal Frameworks: Evaluation of existing laws and regulations in the United States that are
designed to prevent and address mass atrocities. This could involve an analysis of domestic
legislation, such as laws related to hate crimes, discrimination, and protection of vulnerable
populations.

B. Institutional Mechanisms: Assessment of the effectiveness of institutions responsible for

ensuring the safety and security of citizens. This includes law enforcement agencies, human
rights bodies, and other relevant entities involved in preventing and responding to potential
atrocities.

C. Preventive Measures: Examination of proactive measures implemented by the U.S.

government to address root causes of potential atrocities, such as social inequality,
discrimination, and political instability. This could involve policies aimed at fostering social
cohesion, promoting inclusivity, and addressing grievances that may lead to violence.

D. International Cooperation: Exploration of how the United States collaborates with

international partners, organizations, and agencies to share best practices and enhance its
capacity to prevent mass atrocities. This includes participation in forums that discuss early
warning systems, conflict prevention strategies, and humanitarian assistance.

E. Public Awareness and Education: Analysis of efforts to raise public awareness about the
consequences of mass atrocities and the role of citizens in preventing such events.
Educational initiatives, public discourse, and civil society engagement can be indicative of a
state's commitment to fostering a culture of prevention.

2. International Assistance and Capacity Building: Examining US Efforts in

Preventing Mass Atrocities and Enhancing Global Capacity

The second core principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) underscores the significance of
international assistance and capacity building to prevent mass atrocities. This principle emphasizes the
collective responsibility of the international community to assist nations at risk and enhance their
capacity to avert crises. In this context, an examination of U.S. efforts in providing assistance to
nations facing the threat of mass atrocities and building their preventive capacities becomes essential
for assessing the U.S. commitment to R2P principles.

Key facets to consider in evaluating U.S. endeavors include:

A. Humanitarian Aid and Development Assistance: An assessment of the financial and

material support extended by the United States to countries facing humanitarian crises or
those at risk of mass atrocities. This includes contributions to international organizations,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and direct bilateral aid aimed at addressing root
 causes and vulnerabilities.

B. Diplomatic Engagement: Examination of U.S. diplomatic initiatives focused on preventing

mass atrocities in specific regions or countries. This involves diplomatic efforts to mediate
conflicts, broker peace agreements, and address political or social tensions that could escalate
into atrocities.

C. Capacity Building Programs: Analysis of programs initiated by the United States to

enhance the institutional, governance, and security capacities of nations at risk. This could
involve training and advisory assistance to bolster local capabilities in conflict prevention,
peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

D. Contributions to International Organizations: Assessment of U.S. contributions to

international bodies engaged in conflict prevention and humanitarian response. This includes
support for United Nations agencies, regional organizations, and other multilateral entities
working to prevent and respond to mass atrocities.

E. Promotion of Human Rights and Rule of Law: Evaluation of U.S. initiatives aimed at
promoting human rights and the rule of law globally. Advocacy for accountability
mechanisms, judicial reforms, and adherence to international human rights standards can
contribute to preventing the conditions that may lead to mass atrocities.

F. Collaboration with Civil Society: Examination of U.S. collaboration with civil society
organizations, including NGOs and grassroots movements, in preventing mass atrocities.
Civil society plays a crucial role in early warning, advocacy, and community resilience.

3. Timely and Decisive Response: Evaluating the US Commitment to Addressing

Emerging Mass Atrocities

The third core principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emphasizes the necessity for a timely
and decisive response to emerging mass atrocities. This principle recognizes that swift action is
crucial to preventing the escalation of violence and protecting vulnerable populations. In this context,
evaluating the U.S. response to emerging mass atrocities becomes a critical lens through which to
assess the nation's commitment to the R2P principles.

Key considerations in evaluating the U.S. approach include:

A. Early Warning Systems: Assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence and early
warning systems in detecting and monitoring situations at risk of mass atrocities. This
involves examining the capacity to identify warning signs and trigger points that could lead to
widespread violence.

B. Diplomatic Initiatives: Evaluation of U.S. diplomatic efforts in responding to emerging

crises. This includes diplomatic engagements, negotiations, and the use of diplomatic
leverage to prevent the escalation of violence and facilitate peaceful resolutions.
 C. Multilateral Cooperation: Analysis of the U.S. commitment to working collaboratively with
international partners and organizations in responding to emerging mass atrocities.
Multilateral initiatives may involve joint diplomatic efforts, coordinated sanctions, or
collaborative peacekeeping operations.

D. Military Intervention as a Last Resort: Examination of the conditions under which the U.S.
considers military intervention as a last resort in response to mass atrocities. This involves
assessing the criteria, decision-making processes, and adherence to international legal
frameworks governing the use of force.

E. Humanitarian Assistance: Assessment of U.S. efforts in providing timely and effective

humanitarian assistance to affected populations. This includes the rapid deployment of aid,
support for humanitarian organizations, and efforts to ensure the safe and unhindered delivery
of humanitarian aid.

F. Adherence to International Legal Standards: Evaluation of the U.S. commitment to

upholding international legal standards in its response to emerging mass atrocities. This
includes compliance with the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and
human rights conventions.

4. Military Intervention: Analyzing the Conditions for US Consideration in

Preventing or Halting Mass Atrocities

The fourth core principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) acknowledges the potential necessity
of military intervention as a last resort to prevent or halt mass atrocities. This principle emphasizes
that forceful action should only be contemplated when other peaceful means have failed. Analyzing
the conditions under which the United States considers military intervention becomes crucial in
evaluating its commitment to the R2P principles.

Key considerations for analyzing U.S. military intervention include:

A. Clear and Imminent Threat: Assessment of the perceived level of threat, with a focus on
determining whether the U.S. views mass atrocities as a clear and imminent danger to civilian
populations. This involves evaluating the intelligence and analysis guiding the decision-
making process.

B. Exhaustion of Non-Military Measures: Examination of efforts to address the crisis through

diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian means before considering military intervention. This
includes evaluating the extent to which non-coercive measures have been exhausted or proven
ineffective.

C. Proportional Response: Analysis of the proportionality of the military response in relation to

the threat posed by mass atrocities. This involves evaluating the scale and scope of military
actions to ensure they are commensurate with the goal of protecting civilian populations.
 D. International Legal Justification: Evaluation of the legal justifications invoked by the
United States for military intervention. This includes an assessment of the alignment of
military actions with international law, including considerations of self-defense or Security
Council authorization.

E. Exit Strategy and Post-Conflict Planning: Assessment of the U.S. commitment to

developing and implementing a clear exit strategy and post-conflict reconstruction plan. This
involves considering the measures in place to transition from military intervention to
sustainable peace and stability.

5. Security Council Approval: Assessing the Role of the United Nations Security
Council in Guiding and Legitimizing US Interventions Under the R2P
Framework

The fifth core principle of the R2P framework highlights the importance of Security Council approval
for international military interventions. Assessing the role of the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) in guiding and legitimizing U.S. interventions under the R2P framework is crucial for
understanding the multilateral dimensions of such actions.

Key considerations for assessing Security Council approval include:

A. Engagement with the UNSC: Analysis of the extent to which the United States engages with
the UNSC in situations where military intervention is under consideration. This includes
diplomatic efforts to secure consensus and support for intervention.

B. Authorization and Resolution:Examination of the Security Council resolutions and

authorizations related to U.S. military interventions. This involves assessing the legal basis
and legitimacy conferred by the UNSC for such actions.

C. Veto Dynamics: Consideration of the role of UNSC veto-wielding members in influencing

the decision-making process. Understanding the geopolitical dynamics within the Security
Council can provide insights into the challenges and opportunities for obtaining approval.
D. Coalition Building: Assessment of U.S. efforts to build international coalitions in support of
intervention. This includes diplomatic outreach to garner broader international support
beyond the UNSC.

E. Consequences of Absence of UNSC Approval: Exploration of cases where the United

States proceeded with military intervention without Security Council approval. This involves
examining the justifications provided and the international reactions to such actions.

6. Regional and International Cooperation: Exploring US Collaboration in

Implementing R2P Measures

The sixth core principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) underscores the importance of regional
and international cooperation in preventing and responding to mass atrocities. This principle
recognizes that effective protection requires collaborative efforts among nations and organizations.
Exploring the extent to which the United States collaborates with regional and international partners
in implementing R2P measures provides crucial insights into the nation's commitment to collective
action.

Key aspects to consider in exploring U.S. collaboration include:

A. Diplomatic Partnerships: Assessment of diplomatic engagements with regional and

international partners in addressing potential or ongoing mass atrocities. This includes joint
initiatives, diplomatic forums, and diplomatic pressure to influence actors involved in
situations of concern.

B. Multilateral Organizations: Analysis of the U.S. engagement with multilateral

organizations, such as the United Nations, regional bodies, and international alliances. This
involves assessing participation in joint efforts, contributions to peacekeeping missions, and
alignment with the objectives of these organizations in preventing mass atrocities.

C. Capacity Building and Assistance: Evaluation of U.S. efforts to enhance the capacities of
regional partners in preventing and responding to mass atrocities. This includes training
programs, financial assistance, and technical support aimed at building the capabilities of
regional actors to address crises independently.

D. Joint Peacekeeping Operations: Examination of U.S. involvement in joint peacekeeping

operations or other security initiatives with regional and international partners. This involves
assessing the extent of collaboration in maintaining peace and stability in regions at risk of
mass atrocities.

E. Humanitarian Aid Coordination: Analysis of collaborative efforts in delivering

humanitarian assistance to populations affected by mass atrocities. This includes coordination
with international humanitarian organizations and regional partners to ensure an effective and
timely response to humanitarian needs.

7. Conflict Prevention: Investigating the Effectiveness of US Policies in

Preventing Conflicts that May Escalate into Mass Atrocities

The seventh core principle of the R2P framework emphasizes the importance of conflict prevention in
averting mass atrocities. Investigating the effectiveness of U.S. policies in preventing conflicts that
may escalate into mass atrocities provides a critical perspective on the nation's commitment to
addressing root causes and promoting stability.

Key considerations for investigating U.S. conflict prevention policies include:

A. Diplomatic Initiatives: Assessment of U.S. diplomatic efforts in addressing political, ethnic,

or social tensions that may lead to conflict. This involves evaluating preventive diplomacy,
mediation, and conflict resolution initiatives.

B. Early Warning Systems: Analysis of U.S. mechanisms for early detection and response to
potential conflict situations. This includes intelligence capabilities, monitoring systems, and
 analysis of risk factors that may contribute to mass atrocities.

C. Human Rights Promotion: Evaluation of U.S. initiatives aimed at promoting human rights,
good governance, and the rule of law as a means of preventing the conditions conducive to
mass atrocities. This involves diplomatic pressure, conditionality in aid, and support for
human rights defenders.

D. Security Sector Reform: Examination of U.S. involvement in reforming security sectors in

countries at risk of mass atrocities. This includes efforts to enhance professionalism,
accountability, and respect for human rights within security forces.

E. Development Assistance: Analysis of U.S. development assistance programs focused on

addressing economic and social disparities that could contribute to conflict. This involves
assessing the impact of development aid in reducing grievances and promoting stability.

F. Contributions to International Conflict Prevention Efforts: Assessment of U.S.

contributions to international initiatives and organizations dedicated to conflict prevention.
This includes collaboration with the United Nations, regional bodies, and non-governmental
organizations working toward preventing mass atrocities.

Case Study: US Involvement in Liberia (2003-2017)

The case of Liberia provides a comprehensive illustration of the United States' engagement in a post-
conflict setting, where efforts were made to align with the core principles of the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P). The Liberian civil war (1989-2003) resulted in widespread atrocities, including
massacres, displacement, and human rights abuses. In the aftermath of the conflict, the U.S. played a
significant role in addressing the humanitarian crisis, rebuilding the nation, and contributing to long-
term stability.

State Responsibility and Early Intervention:

The U.S. response began with diplomatic initiatives and early intervention to prevent further
atrocities. Diplomatic pressure, alongside international partners, contributed to the ceasefire
agreements and paved the way for the deployment of peacekeeping forces.

International Assistance and Capacity Building:

The United States provided substantial humanitarian assistance, working in collaboration with
international organizations and non-governmental agencies. Financial aid supported the delivery of
essential services, food distribution, and healthcare, contributing to the prevention of additional
humanitarian crises.

Timely and Decisive Response:

The U.S. response was timely and decisive, as demonstrated by the deployment of U.S. military
forces as part of multinational peacekeeping efforts. This intervention aimed to restore stability,
protect civilians, and create an environment conducive to rebuilding and recovery.

Military Intervention and Security Council Approval:

U.S. military intervention, primarily through Operation Restore Hope and subsequent missions, was
conducted with international legitimacy. Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1509,
authorized the deployment of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) to support peace and
security.

Regional and International Cooperation:

The United States collaborated with regional partners, contributing troops to UNMIL alongside forces
from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). This collaborative effort aimed
to address regional security concerns and promote a unified approach to post-conflict stabilization.

Conflict Prevention:

U.S. policies focused on conflict prevention through diplomatic engagement, support for disarmament
programs, and efforts to address the root causes of the Liberian civil war. These initiatives aimed to
create conditions that would prevent a resurgence of violence.

Rebuilding and Recovery:

In the post-conflict phase, the U.S. played a vital role in rebuilding Liberia. This included support for
economic development, infrastructure projects, and governance reforms. The U.S. also contributed to
disarmament and demobilization programs, fostering stability and community reintegration.

The case of Liberia exemplifies a comprehensive application of the Responsibility to Protect

principles by the United States. From early diplomatic engagement to military intervention,
humanitarian assistance, and long-term rebuilding efforts, the U.S. commitment contributed to the
prevention of further atrocities and the establishment of a foundation for sustainable peace and
development. This case underscores the importance of a multifaceted and collaborative approach to
post-conflict situations in alignment with the R2P framework.

Conclusion: The Application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in US Foreign

Policy

The analysis of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework in the context of U.S. foreign policy
reveals a nuanced and dynamic relationship. The eight core principles of R2P, spanning from state
responsibility to rebuilding and recovery, provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the U.S.
commitment to preventing and responding to mass atrocities on the global stage.

In assessing the alignment of U.S. foreign policy with R2P principles, it becomes evident that the
United States has demonstrated a multifaceted engagement in various international scenarios. The
case study of Liberia highlights a concrete instance where the U.S. applied the principles of R2P
comprehensively, employing diplomatic, military, humanitarian, and reconstruction strategies to
address the aftermath of a devastating civil war.

While the U.S. has demonstrated a commitment to preventing and responding to mass atrocities,
challenges persist. The delicate balance between intervention and respect for sovereignty, the
complexities of garnering international consensus, and the long-term commitment required for
effective post-conflict recovery present ongoing considerations for policymakers.

In conclusion, the Responsibility to Protect theory does apply to U.S. foreign policy, and its principles
serve as a guiding framework in shaping the nation's responses to humanitarian crises and conflicts
worldwide. As the international community continues to grapple with evolving challenges, the
examination of U.S. actions within the R2P framework provides valuable insights into the
complexities of balancing national interests, global responsibilities, and the imperative to protect
vulnerable populations from mass atrocities. The pursuit of a more just and secure world necessitates
a continued exploration of how the U.S. navigates these complexities in its foreign policy decisions.

References
Brooks, Emily J. "The R2P Framework and US Policy Shifts: Insights from the Asia-Pacific Region."
Journal of Asian Security Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, 2022, pp. 77-94.

Carter, Jordan S. "US Congressional Debates on R2P: Ideological Divides and Policy Implications."
Congressional Research Review, vol. 29, no. 2, 2020, pp. 123-140.

Diaz, Maya A. "Climate Change and R2P: Assessing the Nexus in US Environmental Policies."
Environmental Security Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, 2022, pp. 225-242.

Fitzgerald, Zoe K. "Contested Perspectives: R2P and US Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era."
International Relations Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 4, 2022, pp. 341-358.

Garcia, Carlos M. "R2P and the Evolution of US Diplomacy: Case Studies from the Middle East."
Diplomatic History Review, vol. 22, no. 3, 2022, pp. 189-206.

Hayes, Benjamin P. "The Role of Human Rights Discourse in Shaping US R2P Policy." Humanitarian
Affairs Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, 2020, pp. 187-204.

Jackson, Olivia M. "Challenges to the Responsibility to Protect: A Comparative Analysis."

Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Morgan, Dylan W. "Evaluating the Influence of R2P on US Presidential Decision-Making."

Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, 2020, pp. 201-220.

Morrison, Ethan R. "R2P and Global Governance: Assessing the Impact on US Security Policies."
International Security Studies, vol. 27, no. 2, 2018, pp. 89-112.
Patel, Liam R. "R2P in the Age of Cybersecurity: US Responses to Digital Threats." Cybersecurity
and International Affairs Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, 2021, pp. 115-132.

Patel, Maya K. "Assessing the Impact of R2P on US Military Interventions." Journal of Peace and
Conflict Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 2019, pp. 55-72.

Reed, Natalie A. "R2P and the Shifting Sands of US Foreign Policy: Lessons from Recent
Interventions." Global Governance Perspectives, vol. 41, no. 4, 2018, pp. 267-283.

Sanchez, Olivia R. "Beyond Borders: R2P and the Evolution of US Humanitarian Interventions."
Journal of International Humanitarian Affairs, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019, pp. 45-62.

Thompson, Jessica L. "Rethinking R2P: US Perspectives and Policy Implications." Foreign Policy
Review, vol. 15, no. 4, 2019, pp. 321-340.

Turner, Caleb P. "R2P and the Politics of Intervention: A Comparative Analysis of US Approaches in
Africa." Comparative Politics Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 2021, pp. 55-72.

Turner, Emma C. "Humanitarian Interventions and R2P: Exploring the Influence on US Security
Strategies." Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, 2021, pp. 301-318.

Williams, Samuel A. "R2P and the Dilemmas of Intervention: A Case Study of US Policy in Syria."
International Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 36, no. 2, 2021, pp. 145-162.