Open Access
Close cousins in protection : the evolution of two norms
Loading...
Files
iiz054.pdf (343.27 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
0020-5850; 1468-2346
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
International affairs, 2019, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 597–617
[IOW]
Cite
PADDON RHOADS, Emily, WELSH, Jennifer M., Close cousins in protection : the evolution of two norms, International affairs, 2019, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 597–617, [IOW] - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/62449
Abstract
The Protection of Civilians (PoC) in peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from atrocity crimes are two norms that emerged at the turn of the new millennium with the aim of protecting vulnerable peoples from mass violence and/or systematic and widespread violations of human rights. To date, most scholars have analysed the discourses over the status, strength and robustness of both norms separately. And yet, the distinction between the two has at times been exceptionally fine. In this article, we analyse the constitutive relationship between PoC and R2P, and the impact of discursive and behavioural contestation on their joint evolution within the UN system and state practice over three phases (1999–2005; 2006–10; 2011–18). In so doing, we contribute to the International Relations literature on norms by illuminating ideational interplay in the dynamics of norm evolution and contestation. More specifically, we illustrate how actors may seek to strengthen support for one norm, or dimension of a norm, by contrasting it or linking it with another. Our analysis also reveals that while the two norms of R2P and PoC were initially debated and implemented through different institutional paths and policy frameworks, discursive and behavioural contestation has in more recent years brought them closer together in one important respect. The meaning ascribed to both norms—by representatives of states and institutions such as the United Nations—has become more state-centric, with an emphasis on building and strengthening the capacity of national authorities to protect populations. This meaning contrasts with the more cosmopolitan origins of R2P and PoC, and arguably limits possibilities for the external enforcement of both norms through any form of international authority that stands above or outside sovereign states. This article forms part of the special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs on ‘The dynamics of dissent’, guest-edited by Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published: 01 May 2019
External Links
Publisher
Version
Research Projects
European Commission, 340956
Sponsorship and Funder Information
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement No 340956 - IOW - The Individualisation of War: Reconfiguring the Ethics, Law, and Politics of Armed Conflict.