Abstract:
The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect adopted by the UN in 2005, was a result of the international community’s failure to prevent the horrors Rwandan Genocide and the Yugoslav wars, and sought to enhance the mechanisms for the prevention of mass atrocities. It was formulated to prevent four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. While R2P was a rhetorically compelling international norm, it fell apart in practice, as evidenced by recurring atrocities in places like Myanmar, Syria, and Gaza. The lack of its inconsistent implementation in various cases of mass atrocities, sparked controversy. This thesis examined instances in which R2P had been utilized and in which the principle wasn’t applied, discussing the factors that could explain the question of ‘How effective and successful this framework is in preventing and responding to mass atrocities?’
The research, using a qualitative methodology based on thematic analysis, explored the effectiveness of the doctrine in averting mass atrocities. It also aimed to shed light on the successful interventions of R2P. The study identified the instances where the R2P doctrine can or could have been invoked—like in Myanmar and Gaza—and analyzed the reasons behind its underutilization. As a result, the findings emphasized the structural issues inside the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that hinder the doctrine's effectiveness. Moreover, the findings also revealed the need for defined criteria to measure the success of atrocity prevention. Addressing the structural issues within the UNSC, establishing clear criteria for measuring atrocity prevention success, and fostering a greater inclusive and equitable approach to humanitarian intervention are crucial steps in realizing the full potential of the doctrine.
