R2P and the Limits of Norms

Abstract

This chapter engages with the broader literature on norms to examine the nature of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm and establish a framework with which to challenge the logic underpinning the claims regarding R2P’s normative power and potential. While I do not dispute the claims that R2P is a norm I argue that this status does not necessarily indicate meaningful consensus nor does it axiomatically constitute a positive development. Building on Legro’s framework for determining the robustness of a norm, I argue that determining that a norm exists does not constitute a value judgement, but rather simply establishes that this particular term/phrase/idea commands a degree of consensus and is widely used. Proponents of R2P’s efficacy, I argue, often advance an understanding of norms which obscures the spectrum of norm typology, variations in norm efficacy, the complex process by which norms are diffused and implemented and the influence of power asymmetries on the evolution of norms. I argue that while the goals behind the emergence of a norm may be laudable, the establishment of a norm does not necessarily mean it positively influences state behaviour; in fact the emergence of a norm may well have a negative impact if it sufficiently vague so as to be vulnerable to manipulation. Therefore, the establishment of a norm does not render its meaning immutable; the norm remains vulnerable to strategic, and indeed mendacious, reinterpretation. The chapter concludes, therefore, by defining R2P as a “hollow norm”.