International intervention and the failure of the West
Author: Philip Cunliffe

Liberal cosmopolitanism promised a humane and progressive vision of global reform and improvement, in contrast to the terrible utopian projects of the twentieth century. Yet the efforts to globalise human rights and democracy through force have subverted the liberal international order and produced a new type of cosmopolitan dystopia, in the form of permanent war, jihadist insurrection and a new paternalism embodied in transnational protectorates and the paradigm of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’. Cosmopolitan Dystopia explains how this came about through the rise of humanitarian exceptionalism. The book argues that humanitarian exceptionalism saw humanitarian emergencies as opportunities to develop deeper forms of human solidarity that went beyond nation states, thereby necessitating military responses to each new crisis. This in turn helped to normalise permanent war. As the norm and exception have collapsed into each other, the rules-based order envisioned in traditional liberal internationalism has corroded away. Efforts to embed humanitarian exceptionalism into the international order have undermined the classical liberal ideal of self-determination, with the spread of protectorates and a new paternalist legitimisation of state power in the ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ paradigm.

Consolidator or threat (2005–2011)?
Eglantine Staunton

R2P was unanimously endorsed by member states at the UN World Summit in September 2005. Some key distinctions can, however, be noticed between the definition put forward by the ICISS and the one adopted in the World Summit Outcome Document. For instance, the three responsibilities emphasised in the ICISS report – to prevent, to react and to rebuild – did not appear in the World Summit Outcome Document, and the use of force was made conditional on the approval of the UN Security Council (see UN General Assembly 2005 , paragraphs 138 and 139

in France, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
Eglantine Staunton

In May 2012, after a heated presidential campaign in which he promised to “carry high the voice and values of France to the world” (Hollande 2012b , 36), left-wing candidate François Hollande defeated right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy. In the meantime, despite the stalemate in Syria, R2P continued to develop and remained an influential international norm. Some detractors argued, however, that the backlash faced after the regime change in Libya and the international community's incapacity to put an end to the atrocities being committed in

in France, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
Open Access (free)
Humanitarianism in a Post-Liberal World Order
Stephen Hopgood

, sovereignty could be challenged, whether through R2P, the demands of the ICC, universal jurisdiction, human rights, the Genocide Convention, crimes against humanity and so on. What made this possible was the lack of a state capable of challenging the US, which was explicitly committed in principle to economic and political liberalism (even as it found ways to exempt itself from the impact of those rules). And even where intervention did not occur, and the US explicitly rejected norms around rights and intervention, the space opened for a small army

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
France and the emergence of the responsibility to protect (2000–2004)
Eglantine Staunton

At the end of the 1990s, the international community questioned how to promote human rights without endangering state sovereignty. In response, the early 2000s saw the emergence of a new concept, R2P, in order to allow states to continue protecting beyond their borders, while addressing the issues raised by humanitarian intervention. 1 During this period President Jacques Chirac was in power thanks to his re-election in 2002. 2 Between 1997 and

in France, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
Alexis Heraclides and Ada Dialla

The Annan challenge was taken up by the Canadian-sponsored twelve-person International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which responded by subsuming humanitarian intervention under the novel concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P or RtoP). 31 The aim of the R2P approach was to ‘shift the terms of the debate’; 32 it amounts to a ‘rhetorical trick’ of flipping the coin and shifting the emphasis from the controversial right to intervene

in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century
Philip Cunliffe

sovereignty. Protection is the supreme end of the state, and all other possible ends – say representation, implementation and transmission of political will – are all relegated, seen either as irrelevant or as political prostheses, expendable at best. We could even go as far as to say that ‘R2P’ is Hobbesian in its overriding emphasis on politics and state authority being grounded in the provision of security: all politics is the politics of security, and security is the foundation of everything else. In both cases, the emphasis on security is justified by reference to the

in Cosmopolitan dystopia

France has been a central actor in human protection, yet the existing literature has too often focused on Anglo-Saxon states or states that are wary of its development. In order to address this gap, this book provides an original and much-needed account of France’s relationship to human protection since the 1980s. It analyses a ‘tale of two norms’ using an innovative theoretical framework: The first is ‘France’s domestic norm of human protection’, and the second is the dominant international principle or norm of human protection at the time (chiefly humanitarian intervention in the 1990s and the responsibility to protect (R2P) in the 2000s). Through this ‘tale of two norms’, and also thanks to interviews with key actors such as Gareth Evans and Bernard Kouchner and analysis of fourteen case studies, the book reshapes our understanding of the development and influence of key principles and norms of human protection. It also corrects prevailing assumptions about France’s foreign policy and allows us to anticipate its future foreign policy more accurately. Last but not least, by showing how important it is to pay more attention to the interplay between domestic and international norms and building an innovative framework that can be used beyond the analysis of France and human protection, the book makes a key contribution to the literature on norms and International Relations theory more generally. The book is therefore an essential read for anyone interested in human protection, peace studies, France, foreign policy analysis, International Relations and norm diffusion.

Abstract only
Eglantine Staunton

international principles and norms such as humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) by overlooking the role played by France over the years. Additionally, they preclude us from fully analysing France's past and current foreign policy since they lead us to underestimate the role played both by France's commitment to human protection, and the growing influence that international principles and norms have had on France's conception and practice of human protection. This book thus tells the much-needed story of France and human protection in order to

in France, humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
Jannika Brostrom

intervention: the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P). Non-traditional security threats and the central role played by the UN in resolving them accounts for only half the story in explaining contemporary manifestations of humanitarian intervention. The remaining half, and what has contributed to debates on the legitimacy of the use of force, is the shift in how the norm of sovereignty has

in Violence and the state