Reconceptualizing Sovereignty: The Emergence OF The Responsibility To Protect (R2P) In International Law

The doctrine of sovereignty has undergone a significant transformation due to humanitarian crises that exposed the limitations of rigid non-interventionist norms. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine represents a fundamental shift, redefining sovereignty not as absolute non-interference but as a duty to protect populations from atrocities. Traditionally, the Westphalian model shielded states from external intervention, as enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. However, genocides in Rwanda (1994) and Srebrenica (1995) highlighted the failures of this absolutist approach. Kofi Annan’s challenge—how to respond to mass atrocities without violating sovereignty—catalyzed a shift in international legal thought. R2P, formally endorsed at the 2005 UN World Summit, emerged from customary international law principles, particularly pacta sunt servanda. It was first articulated in the 2001 ICISS Report, which posited that when a state is “unwilling or unable” to protect its citizens, the international community assumes responsibility. While R2P redefines sovereignty, its practical implementation remains contentious. The doctrine’s application in Libya (2011) and inaction in Syria reveal inconsistencies, geopolitical manipulation, and the UN Security Council’s limitations, particularly the veto power under Article 27(3). These challenges complicate R2P’s enforcement and legitimacy. This paper critically examines R2P’s legal evolution, its impact on non-intervention norms, and its broader implications for international law. By analyzing its historical development, legal foundations, and case studies, this study contributes to the discourse on balancing state sovereignty with global humanitarian obligations.