15 Jahre Responsibility to Protect: Worin liegt die Schutzverantwortung?

There are few issues where more is at stake than in deciding the principles for the use of military force. Linked as it is to high expectations the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was received particular scrutiny. On the one hand, it should bring together the norms set out in the UN Charter (prohibiting the use of force and/or intervention with the increased commitment to protecting human rights, on the other hand it should also bring an end to the practice of humanitarian interventions through ever-changing coalitions of the willing. In political science and especially in the field of research into norms, the term emerging norm is often discussed. What effect does this have on the way norms function in the UN's system to uphold peace? Do we find ourselves at a historical crossroads after the Libyan decision, where the UN Charter should be modified? This essay shows that even after the Libyan crisis, there is no consistent state practice for anchoring R2P in customary international law. The current behaviour of states gives no reason to speculate on the emergence of a new norm of intervention. Since there is no legal norm in the case of R2P, humanitarian intervention exists in the gulf between legality and legitimacy. The potential danger of this is that present actions may be justified in the anticipation of a possible future legal situation. The aim should not be to lower the threshold for the use of force outside the UN framework, but to urge the Security Council to reach a political decision. This should not be achieved by calls for changing the law, but rather through a political approach and a change in the collective expectations of the Member States of the Security Council. The strength of R2P lies therefore in its ability to create political pressure, not in the legal implications frequently claimed for it; it is a political concept, not a legal norm.