{"title":"梦想与现实","authors":"G. Evans","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-20200006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn this contribution the author takes stock of the extent to which R2P has both met and fallen short of the dreams of its founders since its endorsement by the 2005 World Summit. As an effective reactive counter-force to atrocity crimes already under way, R2P’s record has been disappointing. But as an institutional catalyst and preventive mechanism it has been generally successful, and as a normative force it has been, and remains, very influential.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dream and the Reality\",\"authors\":\"G. Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1875-984x-20200006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn this contribution the author takes stock of the extent to which R2P has both met and fallen short of the dreams of its founders since its endorsement by the 2005 World Summit. As an effective reactive counter-force to atrocity crimes already under way, R2P’s record has been disappointing. But as an institutional catalyst and preventive mechanism it has been generally successful, and as a normative force it has been, and remains, very influential.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"volume\":\"204 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-20200006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Responsibility to Protect","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-20200006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this contribution the author takes stock of the extent to which R2P has both met and fallen short of the dreams of its founders since its endorsement by the 2005 World Summit. As an effective reactive counter-force to atrocity crimes already under way, R2P’s record has been disappointing. But as an institutional catalyst and preventive mechanism it has been generally successful, and as a normative force it has been, and remains, very influential.