CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

VERONIKA BÍLKOVÁ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ subordination and a chronological sequence among /pillars of R2P/ ”. 28 The first pillar is the primary and most important one; the second pillar is complementary to the first one, serving as “a means to assist the efforts of the State to fulfil an obligation that is primarily its own”; 29 the third pillar is subsidiary to the first one and should only be activated in exceptional circumstances. The relation is therefore that of complementarity between the first two pillars and that of subsidiarity between the first and the third pillar, with no specific link established between the second and the third pillar. This view of R2P pillars predates the introduction of RwP; in fact, it has been part of the Brazilian discourse ever since the adoption of the 2005 Outcome Document. Yet, since 2011 it has frequently been invoked in the framework of the debate on RwP. At first sight, the sequencing approach seems logical and acceptable. After all, if states have primary responsibility for the protection of their population, is it not so that this responsibility is at the top of the R2P pyramid and that the responsibility of the international community comes second, either to support and complement the former responsibility (pillar two) or to replace it if the state manifestly fails to exercise it (pillar third)? While in principle, the response could be affirmative, the problem with the sequencing approach consists in the rigidity it could bring into R2P. The fear that such rigidity could prevent the application of the concept is what most probably motivated the Special Advisor Edward C. Luck to stress in his 2012 report that “pillars are not sequenced and are all of equal importance” 30 and that “experience has shown the need for a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how the three pillars relate to and reinforce each other. Often, observers voice a preference for some pillars over the others. However, none of the pillars is likely to be effective standing alone” . 31 The quote indicates that the sequencing approach is perceived as an attempt to prevent the application of pillars two and three rather than a way to make this application more principled and subject to clearer rules. This is equally true for another dimension of the sequencing approach that can be read into RwP, that referring to the relationship between prevention and reaction. In principle, the concept of R2P has always been based upon the idea that prevention is better than reaction and that the international community should primarily focus on developing mechanisms of early warning, information sharing and crimes prevention. 32 Under RwP, prevention is equally seen as “the best policy /because/ it is the emphasis on preventive diplomacy that reduces the risk of armed conflict and the human costs associated with it”. 33 Whereas the two approaches seem similar to each other, there are suspicions that RwP does not conceptualize the relationship between prevention and reaction as that of complementarity and mutual supportiveness but, 28 Brazil, Statement by H. E. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, 5 September 2012, op. cit. 29 Ibid. 30 UN Doc. A/66/874-S/2012/578, op. cit., par. 3. 31 Ibid., par. 20. 32 See UN Doc. A/64/864, op. cit. 33 UN Doc. A/66/51-S/2011/701, op. cit., par. 11(a).

30