Can the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Act as Deterrence Against Mass Atrocity and Human Rights Infringement in Africa?

Post-cold war interventionism in Africa to protect civilians from mass atrocities has led to a series of debates among scholars on the key issues bothering state sovereignty and the universalization of human rights. While several scholarly works have criticized the continued mobilization of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine, only a few have interrogated what accounts for its continued use and the extent to which this solidifies the institutionalization of the doctrine. This highlights the importance of critical engagements with recent practice operational challenges, expectation gaps, and the role Africa can play in solidifying the doctrine. Though the recent experiences of the RtoP interventions in Libya, Cote d’Iviore, Mali, South Sudan and Central African Republic have thrown up intractable challenges for the doctrine as regards upholding fundamental rights, the need to protect the civilian population from mass atrocities remains consistently compelling in protracted conflict scenarios in Africa. Hence, beyond the state culpability defenses and institutional, operational, and conceptual challenges associated with the RtoP, the continuous mobilization of the RtoP via series of United Nations Security Council Resolutions indicates the doctrine no doubt still holds basis within the international community for deterring human rights violations in state relations with their citizens, particularly among African nations where these atrocious crimes and massive human rights violations have continued to persist with no end in sight. Future interventions must therefore be guided by a strict adherence to the principle of jus in bello and jus ad bellum. Intervening states must commit themselves to post-obligation duties.