In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.