CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

RESPONSIBILITY WHILE PROTECTING ȃ AN ALTERNATIVE TO R2P… by the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, 16 received rather cautious reactions from the Special Advisor of the UN Secretary-General on Responsibility to Protect, Edward C. Luck, and from certain Western states such as the USA, the Netherlands and Germany. At the same time, the concept was warmly welcome by one of the spiritual fathers of R2P, Gareth Evans, who assessed RwP as “an important and very constructive contribution to the debate, at a time where dialogue is urgently needed in the wake of criticism about the way the United Nations civilian protection mandate was implemented in Libya last year”. 17 RwP was further invoked by Brazil in the debate of the UN General Assembly relating to one of the reports of the UN Secretary-General, held in September 2012. 18 So far Brazil remains the only country standing firmly behind RwP, with several other states, such as Kenya, Malaysia and South Africa, showing some sympathy to the concept. The limited support reflects not only reservations about RwP that some countries have but also uncertainty as to the actual content and scope of this concept, which lends itself to several interpretations. These interpretations are introduced in the next section of this paper. 2. Three in One under the Concept of Responsibility while Protecting Neither the Concept Paper nor any of the statements by Brazil on Responsibility while Protecting contain a clear and detailed explanation of the content and scope of the concept. 19 In fact, the materials lend themselves to three different readings. 20 All of them relate to the use of force under Pillar Three and to the mechanism of collective security foreseen by Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The differences pertain to the aspects of R2P (or aspects beyond R2P) that the readings concentrate on, as well as to the extent of changes they seek to introduce into the application of R2P. It is important to stress that no strict borders and no contradictions exist among the three readings; rather than incompatible alternatives, they constitute an interpretative continuum. Under the narrowest reading, RwP would place itself within the implementation of Pillar Three of R2P and especially of its military component. It would put the main emphasis upon the respect for international standards on the one hand, and the 16 Brazil, Statement by Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota in a debate on “Responsiblity While Protecting” at the United Nations, New York, 21 February 2012. 17 Statement by the Hon Gareth Evans Co-Chair of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Informal UNGA discussion on “Responsibility While Protecting”, hosted by the Permanent Mission of Brazil in the presence of Minister of External Relations Patriota, New York, 21 February 2012 18 Brazil, Statement by H. E. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, at the General Assembly Debate on “Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response”, New York, 5 September 2012. 19 See also DerekMcDougall, ResponsiblityWhile Protecting. Brazil’s Proposal for Modifying Responsibility to Protect, Global Responsibility to Protect, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2014, pp. 64-78. 20 From that perspective, the belief of Brazil that “the purpose of Brazil’s proposal is now clearly understood” (Brazil, Statement by H. E. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti , 5 September 2012, op. cit .) does not seem to be truly warranted.

27