Close cousins in protection : the evolution of two norms
International affairs, 2019, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 597–617[IOW]
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
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
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.
Published: 01 May 2019
Cadmus permanent link: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/62449
Full-text via DOI: 10.1093/ia/iiz054
ISSN: 0020-5850; 1468-2346
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Grant number: FP7/340956/EU
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.
Files associated with this item
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as 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.