Responsibility-to-Protect and a Tri-dimensional Methodology: Exploring the Epistemic-Morality of an Interventionist Principle

An important thematic concern in international ethics is the responsibility-to-protect (RtoP) principle. This principle, properly captured, is usually invoked within the context of armed humanitarian intervention, when a powerful state (or a coalition of states) is justifiably convinced and authorized that military intervention is imperative within another sovereign state, if the latter has substantively failed to confront and address egregious human rights violations (genocide, for instance,) against some group of people within its territorial boundaries (citizens’ perspective), or to support a (weak) state when it is being unjustifiably aggressed against by (a more powerful) state (statist perspective). In-depth research has shown that the RtoP from the citizens’ perspective has motivated different scholarly arguments within the international context. Some scholars have argued in support of the principle, taking it to be a great leap in the promotion of human rights across state borders (argument from human rights). But, some other scholars have contrarily contended, taking the RtoP principle as a roll-back on the international promotion of the sovereignty of the modern state (argument from state sovereignty). This exercise also contributes to the discussion in a specific sense: it attempts to advance a tri-dimensional methodology of deeper evaluation for the RtoP principle. It evaluates: (i) the motives and the intentions of the interventionist-actors that invoke the principle, within a given context; (ii) the means deployed and the ways they are deployed by the interventionist-actors to contextually carry out the goal(s) of the principle, and (iii) the limits and results (or outcomes) of any instance of invocation of the principle internationally. Following the methodology yields a reliable evaluative framework, guiding against any uncritical condemnation or commendation of the RtoP internationally. The methodology, as argued, may be free-standing from the just war theory; though, the former still derives some insights from the latter.