The Responsibility to Protect and a Cosmopolitan Approach to Human Protection

This chapter outlines the monograph’s overarching research objective, which is to demonstrate that, through being contextualised within the framework of Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach and providing a prospective footing for the constitutionalisation and grounding of cosmopolitan ethical norms, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine reflects a shift towards a more cosmopolitan approach to human protection in the post-Cold War period. The chapter explains the decision to undertake this research objective; outlines the three major contributions the monograph makes to the existing literature on R2P and contemporary forms of cosmopolitan theory; explains the decision to focus on human protection—a consequence of the doctrine’s engagement with atrocity prevention and incorporation of the principles of distributive global justice—and provides a synopsis of each individual chapter in the book.

This chapter examines the key tenets—and limitations—associated with a cosmopolitan approach to human protection. It argues that the principles of collective responsibility, conditional state sovereignty, cosmopolitan criminal justice and, in addition, the provision of delineated and limited thresholds for intervention all underpin this cosmopolitan typology. Furthermore, the chapter explores the relationship between cosmopolitan human protection and the broader ethical principles of human emancipation, atrocity prevention and human security. It also critiques both the ethical and institutional variants of cosmopolitan human protection and, importantly, outlines a number of broader weaknesses symptomatic of this cosmopolitan typology. These include its focus on the symptoms and aftermath of conflict, realist, liberal and liberal-nationalist opposition to the scope and demands associated with ‘cosmopolitan’ criminal justice and the proposal to codify humanitarian intervention in international law.

This chapter explores the moral and legal dynamics and empirical connotations attached to Habermas’ normative model of global constitutionalism. In particular, the chapter engages with Habermas’ claim that the UN is paradigmatic of the evolution from proto-constitutional legal tenets to the constitutional authorities of a cosmopolitan legal order. Whilst acknowledging that the UN has yet to move comprehensively in a cosmopolitan direction, the chapter argues that the UN reflects the foundations of a budding global constitutional order resembling something comparable to a legally constituted community of states and their citizens. This is as a consequence of the characteristics and innovations associated with the UN Charter which, in turn, have come to constitute prima facie aspects of a global constitution. In the process, and as the chapter articulates, the UN has come to offer a potential ‘stepping stone’ to the establishment of a cosmopolitan legal order.

This chapter undertakes a robust and comprehensive assessment of the relationship between R2P and the global ethics underpinning a cosmopolitan approach to human protection. Whilst acknowledging that the doctrine has yet to fulfil the normative demands and moral exigencies of cosmopolitan human protection, the chapter contends that R2P can be equated with the principles of collective responsibility, conditional state sovereignty and the provision of delineated and limited thresholds for intervention coterminous with this cosmopolitan typology. In addition, the chapter argues that R2P engages and interacts with the broader maxims of human emancipation, atrocity prevention and human security that lie at the heart of a cosmopolitan approach to human protection.

This chapter explores the relationship between R2P and both the distributive and criminal forms of cosmopolitan justice. It argues that the doctrine shares a diminutive relationship with the ‘poverty and causation’ model of distributive justice, through tacitly acknowledging the importance of the global socio-economic realm in achieving justice for individuals and, furthermore, through beginning to provide recommendations on how global conditions of poverty and inequality conducive to protracted intra-state conflict could potentially be subverted. Moreover, the chapter contends that R2P can be equated with the ‘cosmopolitan’ model of criminal justice. This is evidenced by the residual duty inculcated on the international community to intervene in instances of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in order to remedy an ‘injustice’ and protect people’s rights and interests. The chapter also articulates that R2P has enhanced the relevance of this cosmopolitan vision of criminal justice, through countering opposition grounded in the narratives of realism, liberalism and liberal-nationalism.

This chapter assesses R2P’s legal cogency within the framework of Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach. It argues that the doctrine is part of the establishment of a ‘new’ hierarchy of law; establishes a clear jurisdictional relationship between the authority of the international community and the authority of sovereigns; and is a novel construct that uses pre-existing legal principles as ‘building blocks’ for a new international order. Furthermore, the chapter articulates that progress under R2P has been evidenced in practice, with the doctrine occupying a space at the high end of the norm cascade spectrum. Consequently, through its locus as a novel and nascent international legal principle, R2P has strengthened the claim that the UN embodies the foundations of a weak yet emerging global constitutional order resembling something analogous to a legally constituted political community of states and citizens, tacitly extending Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach. At the same time, R2P has come to provide a platform for the constitutionalisation and grounding of cosmopolitan ethical norms, engendering a sense of optimism surrounding the evolution towards a more cosmopolitan approach to human protection in the post-Cold War period.

This chapter contends that R2P has reduced the likelihood of human protection being used as a cover for the pursuit of imperialist and, more specifically, self-motivated inclinations germane to powerful states. It argues that R2P reflects a budding international legal principle endorsed and re-affirmed by a number of non-Western states that transcends and ‘dethrones’ the lexicon of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, the practice of R2P has similarly lessened the prospect of human protection concerns being used as a cover for the pursuit of state-defined interests, with Operation Unified Protector in Libya representing a genuine application of R2P’s principles and motivated by primarily humanitarian concerns. Subsequently, the doctrine has provided a framework through which the failure of cosmopolitan human protection in practice to weaken the prospect of intervention being used as a cover for the pursuit of objectives apposite to powerful states can begin to be addressed. In the process, R2P has helped to reinforce the sense of enthusiasm that already surrounds the evolution towards a more cosmopolitan approach to human protection in the post-Cold War period.

This chapter postulates a series of reforms which, if introduced, could strengthen the relationship between R2P and both the cosmopolitan form of human protection and Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach. These include fully enumerating R2P in international law, modifying a state’s perception of its ‘national interest’ and constructing an independent and voluntary military capacity exclusive to the UN. Such proposals would come to perpetuate the limited moral and legal progress thus far made towards a more cosmopolitan approach to human protection and heighten the sense of enthusiasm that surrounds the evolution towards this cosmopolitan typology. The chapter also puts forward recommendations that would help R2P to address the asymmetrical relationships and further weaken the imperialist trends that continue to run antithetical to Habermas’ linear and teleological assessment of the constitutionalisation process. More specifically, it champions the political reforms put forward under the aegis of cosmopolitan democracy and the endorsement of the Responsibility while Protecting (RwP) initiative which, if implemented, would further reinforce the sense of enthusiasm that already surrounds the transition towards a more cosmopolitan approach to human protection in the post-Cold War period.

This chapter details how the monograph’s research objective has been undertaken and subsequently validated, alongside its contributions to the existing literature on R2P and both cosmopolitan human protection and Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach. The chapter also reiterates a number of broader themes and ideas touched upon in the course of the book that it is hoped will provoke further debate, discussion and academic research on R2P and these respective cosmopolitan typologies. These include the impact of context and complexity on the future development and progress of the doctrine. The chapter argues that further research on R2P could help to enhance international consensus on the doctrine and, consequently, strengthen the implementation of R2P’s legal and conceptual principles. Moreover, and as either an intention or by-product, additional research could have further significant and positive implications for the relationship between the doctrine and both cosmopolitan human protection and Habermas’ constitutional cosmopolitan approach.