Reflections on the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, and a possible alternative approach

Abstract

ABSTRACT This commentary reflects on the 3-pillar strategy for the implementation of the R2P, put forward by the UN Secretary-General in 2009. It outlines three problems with the 3-pillar strategy. First, fear of pillar 3 undermines support for R2P in its entirety; second, the 3-pillar strategy puts the emphasis on what the international community can do to States if they fail, rather than what all States should do all the time; and third, the 3-pillar approach assumes for the most part that where atrocities are being committed, either the territorial State or non-State actors are to blame. This commentary describes an alternate framing, adopted in the R2P ‘Framework for Action’, produced by the Asia Pacific Centre and the Global Centre for R2P last month. That framework describes what States should do to better protect populations from atrocity crimes across four spheres of action: (1) domestic laws, policies and institutions; (2) bilateral cooperation and influencing; (3) regional cooperation and influencing; and (4) multilateral cooperation. The approach taken in the framework aims to shift perceptions about R2P from a responsibility that is owned and actioned (or not) by the international community at large, to a responsibility that is owned and actioned by individual States.