Talk:Responsibility to protect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...
Close

Untitled

Hi, I'm just pointing out that under the section "Double standards in the implementation" the author of the paragraph is in discussion with the referred author. Encyclopedic text should refrain from such direct critique of the referred author. A suitable alternative would be to refer another author whose ideas oppose the first author. But I believe that Wikipedia articles should be clear of opinions of its authors. 84.50.138.20 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I hope the changes are okay with everyone - the section on whether or not RtoP gave false hope seemed to be reminiscent of the section on military intervention. I also put the call to action from Kofi Annan back in the conception section because I think this root cause is very important. Thanks! (Ras543 14:25, 5 May 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.156.138 (talk)

Hi there,

I just edited the first paragraph of your article so it would link nicely to my article on humanitarian intervention and human security (its just part of a university assignment and the article is on human security). Hope you find the changes ok.

Thanks (Pangaea42 15:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Is there any way to capitalize the "p" in the title so that it reads "Responsibility to Protect"? The way it looks now (uppercase R and lower case p) looks unprofessional. ([[65.196.160.2 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)]] 12:02, 9 July 2013 (EST))

Instances Biased, uncited, unjustified and Original Research

The section "Instances" seems to be biased against the U.S., has no citations, no justifications and may simply be "original research" by the writer. I will edit it to remove the items I think are unjustifiable, and add some tags to the section. (no, I am not an American) Sailfish2 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's biased against the US but it is certainly an anachronistic and unnecessary section. I think its purpose it to boost the case for R2P in places like Syria, and by extension any civil war anywhere. Wikipedia can't be poltical like that so I've been bold and removed it. Akafd76 07:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Supporters - human security proponents

I have added 'human security proponents' as supporters of R2P. R2P very much follows the human security approach not only in terms of the goal of protecting people from violence and insecurity, but also in the desire to provide a workable solution within the current international framework. For this reason, I felt it was worthwhile to identify human security proponents as strong supporters of r2p and briefly explain why. Timschocker (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Novel?

In what sense is this doctrine Novel, it's exactly the same stuff spouted by Blair and Clinton to justify bombing Yugoslavia.Domminico (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I would not characterize the thwarting of a genocide / ethnic cleansing event "spouting" justifications, it is correct that the intervention in Yugoslavia is an application of this doctrine. Some earlier examples include the aborted mission in Somalia. It is a novel development, in a historical context, that foreign countries would as a group intervene to protect the citizenry of a government that is unable or unwilling to protect its own people from violence, or that is causing that violence. Those interventions predated the formulation of R2P as a doctrine, but they can be seen as antecedents. The proponents hope that by establishing it as an international norm it could be discussed and applied sooner so as to prevent situations like the genocides in Rwanda or Darfur, although their model was Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. A widely criticized application is the US intervention in Iraq which was justified to some degree as protective of the Iraqi people. If you are more cynical about such things, what is novel is that intervention is justified this way or at least that these justifications are given credence. Perhaps an antecedent counterexample would be the old communist bloc rhetoric that justified invasions as "liberation" of the people. The NPR source I added describes what is novel about it. Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't like Domminico's tone, it seems factually incorrect to state that "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a *recently* developed concept." Noam Chomsky gave a speech on the subject before the UN July 23 2009.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090723am.rm (to listen to Chomsky's part about R2P, skip to roughly the 50-55+ minute section)

I think we ought to change the wording to reflect the fact that the concept of R2P is anything but new, although the wording might be novel. Spartan2600 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

The section reads like an essay. It contains no references and makes bold collective statements. For example take the first two sentences "One of the main concerns surround RtoP is that it infringes upon national sovereignty." who are those who have voiced concerns who is it that says it is the main concern? "This concern is generally considered as being misplaced" who considers it misplaced? The construction uses weasel words and without citations to support it may be in breach of the original research policy. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias in introduction

I have removed the following paragraphs from the introduction, as they are biased and are not sourced:

In order to implement RtoP, States and regional organizations need to have the necessary resources to prevent and halt mass atrocities, i.e. early warning mechanisms, stand-by forces in problem areas, mediation mechanisms, etc. These resources and the necessary capacity building must come from the international community, which has a historic pattern of remaining uninvolved.
Full implementation of RtoP is also hindered by the perception that it is being used by western countries to serve their interests when justifying of violations of sovereignty of other countries in developing world, using international institutions west controls.

--164.107.242.254 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Failure to Protect

There should be a separate Wikipedia article on Failure to Protect. The consequences of Failure to Protect can be severe. For example, in Japan, voters are calling for the a new Prime Minister after he failed to protect them from radiation. There will be no tolerance for the Failure to Protect civilians from harm perpetrated by officials.

Failure to Protect is a major subject of its own and should have its own Wikipedia article to enforce the clarity of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.159.114 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

An explanation for sections below

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI