1945

The responsibility to protect and the protection of civilians in armed conflict: Overlap and contrast

image of The responsibility to protect and the protection of civilians in armed conflict: Overlap and contrast

This chapter investigates the overlap and contrast between the responsibility to protect (R2P) and the protection of civilians (POC), keeping in mind the different versions of these principles detailed in the preceding two chapters: the three pillars of R2P and the four POC concepts. Section 3.1 affirms two widely acknowledged differences between R2P and POC – R2P’s narrow scope and deep response – before section 3.2 outlines two important similarities between them: their shared basis in human rights and the cross-cutting parallels between R2P pillars and POC concepts. Section 3.3 turns to more controversial terrain. It argues that the alleged limitation of POC to “armed conflict” is far less significant than commonly supposed and that POC’s status as a humanitarian principle – with primary concerns for impartiality and neutrality – is not fully applicable to all POC concepts. Subsection 3.3.3 applies Abbott and Snidal’s analytic categorization of soft laws to R2P and POC, illustrating the similarities and differences between each of the principles. Section 3.4 assesses the usefulness of differentiating peacekeeping operations (PKOs) on the basis of R2P and POC, and advances one model of how this may be done.

Related Subject(s): Human Rights and Refugees
Sustainable Development Goals:
/content/books/9789210558945c006
dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789210558945
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error