Christian Leffler / Oct 2025
Photo: Shutterstock
Twenty years ago, Heads of State and Government meeting at the UN adopted the responsibility to protect principle, as articulated in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. They collectively – and unanimously - affirmed the responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and accepted a collective responsibility to encourage and help each other uphold this commitment. They also declared their preparedness to take timely and decisive action, in accordance with the UN Charter and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations, when national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations.
R2P, as it became known, has had its ups and downs since then. Mostly downs. It started off quite well. Resolutions were adopted, solemn statements made. By 2008 the UN Secretary General had appointed a Special Adviser on R2P, working alongside the one on Genocide Prevention. Useful work has been done, in particular on early warning and preventive action.
Then came Libya. On March 17, 2011 the Security Council adopted two resolutions authorising Member States, acting individually or through regional organisations to take action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to protect Libyan civilians against their own authorities. Two days later a coalition under a NATO umbrella, led by the UK, US and France, launched military action.
It was the first time the UN drew on the principles of R2P to call on Member States to take enforcement action, and it is likely to be the last one, too. Criticism of NATO, and of countries appearing to go beyond the limits of the UN mandate started almost as soon as the intervention started. Russia and China came to regret that they had abstained rather than vetoed the resolution.
Brazil, which had also abstained, returned a few months later with an initiative on Responsibility while Protecting. While formally aiming to develop stricter criteria for any future intervention it soon became a tool for criticising any Western initiative to take action under an R2P banner. Not that any such action was likely to be approved by the UN Security Council again.
Since then we have seen a multiplication of atrocities, some but not all genocidal, around the world, followed by a sad litany of statements of concern and well-meaning resolutions, some proactive but mostly declaratory. Still the same year as the Libya intervention there were Security Council resolutions on Côte d’Ivoire, South Sudan and Yemen. Looking further afield one can mention Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan.
And now Gaza. Without belittling any of the other murderous conflicts the horrors in Gaza stand out for several reasons. It was provoked by actions and a rhetoric by Hamas that hark back to the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews during the Second World War, which triggered international work on genocide prevention, and it has since been pursued, in public and without excuse, against the entire Palestinian population in Gaza with almost unimaginable, callous ruthlessness. Moreover, it has been the subject of rulings by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, both condemning the manner in which the war is pursued leading, in the case of the ICC, to arrest warrants being issued against Israeli political leaders. As if that were not enough, a UN Commission of Inquiry recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
And so? Is the world up in arms, ready to take action and live up to the collective commitment to protect? Up in arms, yes, in many parts, but action, no. The United States has been cheering the Israeli campaign on until the very recent Trumpian peace plan which gives Prime Minister Netanyahu almost all of what he has not been able to achieve on the battlefield. The European Union has done an extraordinary amount of collective, public handwringing but very little else. Under increasing pressure from public opinion it was edging towards introducing limited trade and other sanctions until President Trump announced his peace plan with PM Netanyahu by his side. One could almost hear the collective sigh of relief as European leaders backed away from any decision on measures to take.
It should be said that the Americans and Europeans are in good company around the world. Despite political condemnations, China and India have both expanded their commercial ties significantly and deepened cooperation on science and technology and in other areas including, in the case of India, armaments. Brazil is no different and Russia has its own, special and complicated relationship with Israel.
In fact the only BRICS country that stands out is South Africa, which brought a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice in December 2023 resulting in three successive orders of provisional measures from the Court, all of which were ignored by Israel. (A similar, diplomatically brave stance was taken by The Gambia in 2019 when it launched a genocide case against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya. This also led to a Court order of provisional measures which, sadly, was also ignored.)
The R2P concept emerged in response to the failure of the international community to adequately respond to mass atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. It was driven by the vow of “never again”, and aimed to create processes to prevent outrages before they happen, not mourn them afterwards. A lofty, praiseworthy ambition but since then we have seen new atrocities perpetrated, again and again. Yet Europe deliberates, the UN deplores, and innocent civilians die, by the thousands.
While the Responsibility to Protect has faced political fatigue and selective implementation over the past two decades, its foundations remain as relevant today as in the more hopeful context in which it was established. By going back to its own first principles the EU could contribute to restoring the political legitimacy and operational relevance of R2P, fostering a more consistent and principled international response to emerging and ongoing mass atrocity situations. A structured approach to atrocity prevention would require enhancing early warning and risk assessment mechanisms, ensuring that accountability, protection, and human rights imperatives inform its crisis management and cooperation instruments and developing new partnerships with other countries and regional organisations ready to step up.
If R2P is to mean anything it must translate into action now. If not now, when?
