Files
Abstract
Since its codification in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) remains one of the most hotly debated norms in the international sphere. Such contestedness is understandable given the doctrine’s natural ambiguity and complexity, but often, any pushback over a particular application or proper interpretation of R2P is taken to represent wholesome rejection on the part of the state contesting. This has resulted in false positives, generalizations, and a lack of concern for the true perspectives of individual states. These forgone conclusions are due in part to the fact that while scholars have identified different forms and motivations for contestation, existing research has not explored when we should expect to see one type of contestation over another. By crafting a “typology” of contestation specific to R2P, the goal of this paper is to prove that states from different “normative communities” will choose different platforms for their contestation. Through a rigorous assessment of three types of contestation at the UN General Assembly – reforms, votes, and debates – I observe that human rights norm antipreneurs such as Syria and Venezuela are the only states who express contestation through “no” votes, while competitor entrepreneurs including India and South Africa are the most likely to contest R2P through support for reforms. Given this finding, I argue states determine the avenue through which to contest a norm based on how overtly they wish to be seen to challenge the norm at hand. This not only provides good news for R2P (not all states who express concerns over R2P wish to see it fail!), but also moves the literature on norms one step closer to integration by proving different types of contestation can – and do – exist simultaneously.