Responsibility for protection: From humanitarian intervention to human security
Michael J. Butler
Routledge, 2025
Is the doctrine of responsibility for protection (R2P) a dead letter? The answer to this question about subtle but deep meaning is complicated, for this reason that scholars and students of international relations should welcome Michael butler’s welcome. Reconstruct protection responsibilityThis not only provides a subtle answer and a subtle answer, but also harasses the important meaning. On the one hand, R2P definitely failed. The UN Security Council rarely arouses, and civilians continue to suffer from humanitarian crises around the world. The essential element of Butler’s contribution is to diagnose this failure. In other words, why did R2P undered in consideration of the initial promise and extensive support of the international community? Various factors, including the dilemma that balanced the political necessity and the idea ambition, the poor international legal foundation, and the dilemma of the euro -centered prejudice that slowed human suffering under liberal democratic international politics, caused R2P. However, the most fundamental cause of R2P failure is, with humanitarian intervention, it is very closely related to nearly confusion levels.
Humanitarian intervention is the concept of abusive and long dilemma of international legitimacy and ethics. The problem is clear. The national sovereignty and the Westphalian model are based on the principles of non -interference and sovereign equality. For the purpose of humanitarian intervention, it is temporarily to stop the principles of national sovereignty and the principles of arbitration. Sine Qua Non International politics. Unfortunately, despite international support for humanitarian involvement, waxing and weakness in other times do not have a clear and practical solution to this basic dilemma. The obvious problem of R2P is that it is vulnerable to all of the latter problems when bleeding with humanitarian intervention in almost equivalence.
The true vision and paradox of Butler’s work is clear in the diagnosis of R2P’s disease. The paradox is the result of conflict with humanitarian intervention, and the “failure” of the R2P is not the failure of the R2P, but the failure of humanitarian intervention. Since the R2P has not been implemented, it is not “fail” because it remains untested as originally designed. Intervention was always a component of R2P, but architects did not intend to form the entire doctrine. Rather, this “reactivity” dimension is one of three dimensions: reconstruction and especially preventive. As originally designed, R2P was a norm of aspiration aiming to change the structure of international security regulations. The failure to solve the humanitarian intervention problem is that the international community ultimately responsible for human security is not realized as a new international security norm. Thus, the version of the concrete R2P eventually emphasized the reactive components and failed, not the R2P itself. As a result, and we should consider Butler’s theoretical and normative purchases that support R2P, but rather ignored. It remains the possibility of guiding resources and doctrines to reconstruct security in politics around the world.
Butler argues that unlike some scholars (Glanville and Widmaur, 2020), R2P has not succeeded as a norm for changing international security, not a solution to humanitarian intervention. But does this mean that it failed in a deadly sense? Butler, as his title suggests, argues that this is not true and R2P can be “reconstructed.” To make this claim, he introduces the concept of “norms” and contributes to the well -known normal life cycle model of Finnemore and Sikkink (1998). Butler assumes the process of spreading the linear and progressive norms (Harrison, 2004), and Butler argues that the identity can harass the norm even after reaching the point of tips due to the opposition’s resistance. Previous statusAnd because of the lack of internalization of ambiguous actors. Such opposite can lead to the future of the future. This is exactly this uncertainty At the same time, it indicates failure and possibilities. The failure of R2P is that it does not achieve a norm. In other words, once a promise can be lost. However, the possibility of the nonlinear formation of the normative life cycle model, as the theoreticalization of Butler’s stagnation concept is likely to be revived as a norm project.
Along with the objective evaluation of the failure of R2P, the normative resuscitation process, that is, rebuilding is Begins. As mentioned earlier, the main defects of R2P were closely related to humanitarian intervention. The R2P has been reduced to the dilemma of humanitarian intervention as the latest “solution” to the latest “solution”. The time and supporters of the R2P were forced to make political concessions to reconcile their obvious opponents or those who simply lack sufficient support. As a result, the hollow version of “R2P-Lite” (Weiss, 2006) and R2P was paradoxically steamed by the supporters to increase the support of the international community. The problem is that in order for the norm to be traction, the norm must have a wide range of behavior that can modify the behavior (Shultz et al., 2007). But in a conflict with humanitarian intervention, R2P has narrowed the scope of behavioral behavior. Unfortunately, “in this way, it hurts to narrow the scope of the relevant behavior” (Butler, 2025, p.79). Thus, R2P’s supporters were wrong about the wrong promise of compromise and humility.
But silver lining is that when you get lost on the road of ambition, R2P supporters can now be in a more advantageous position compared to the body. The main contribution to the failed trajectory of the R2P was the initial separation between its purpose and the international environment. According to Butler, where the anxiety of climate change, looting market activity, forced migration and epidemic diseases, this separation is no longer an obstacle to R2P. It has passed since the first and fourth centuries since the International Intervention and the National Sovereign Committee produced R2P, but the world has witnessed not only accelerating global warming, but also the global financial crisis and ruin global infectious diseases. Mostly, these disasters are the function of globalization. And critically, the acceleration of this globalization provides a unique modern environment for the new repetition of R2P. But this time, the supporters of R2P must be greedy rather than timid. Because the goal is not simply visiting the main gate of humanitarian intervention. Instead, the real goal is to change the international community through new security regulations.
Unless so far, the author of this review is entirely approved. Reconstruct protection responsibility. Butler’s work is insightful, thorough, imaginative and ambitious. His insight that he has not failed because R2P has never been truly implemented is original and profound. Architects of R2P have designed to “resolve” humanitarian intervention indirectly. Their direct purpose was the establishment of a new security clause where the international community acquired (human) individual security rather than the state’s security with the state. As Butler insists, this is still possible. Importantly, rather than starting from the beginning, scholars, policymakers and exercises must be visited R2P as originally intended. In this way Reconstruct protection responsibility In small areas, readers invite readers to reconsider the possibilities and promises of R2P. Many means for future research can be found on this page. For example, what does the return of weekly wars and multiple systems mean by R2P and the spread of norms? How should the doctrine of “protection” and “reconstruction” at the three dimensions of R2P lead to the greatest support of the international community? How do Donald Trump return to the US presidential position on R2P? On the other hand, the US priority agenda in the world’s strongest countries is inevitable for new international norms based on collective responsibility. On the other hand, Western prejudice that has been disillusioned with R2P, considering supporters, considering supporters, the international position of the United States, which can replace the United States, is less than a renewed R2P if it can replace the United States. I do it. This focuses on human anxiety, not political consideration. Ultimately, the time will say, but Butler’s work certainly provides enough evidence to stop for a while to reconsider what we think about the responsibility of our protection and the promise of the future of world politics.
reference
Butler, MJ (2025) Responsibility for protection: From humanitarian intervention to human security. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105628
FINNEMORE, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) ‘International Norms and Political Changes’, International organization52 (4), pp. 887-917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
Glanville, L. and WIDMAIER, WW (2020) ‘R2P and CT and Orchard, P. (EDS) benefits Establishment of responsibility for protection: competition and integration. London: Routledge, pp. 50-68. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352430-3
Harrison, E. (2004) ‘National Socialization, International Norms and Liberal Peace’, International politics41 (4), pp. 521-542. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.IP.8800095
Schultz, WP, NOLAN, JM, Cialdini, RB, Goldstein, NJ and Griskevicius, V. (2007) Psychological science18 (5), pp. 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693325
Weiss, TG (2006) R2P and World Summit after 9/11, Wisconsin International Law Journal24 (3), p. 741-760.
Additional reading of electronic international relations
