R2P and Intervention After Libya

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) released a report arguing that states and the international community have a responsibility to protect (R2P) citizens from major human rights violations and war crimes. The coming years saw much discussion of the concept and supportive votes at the U.N., but there was little practical implementation. In 2011, world events and U.N. action breathed new life into R2P. Libya was the first case of the U.N. using R2P to authorize the use of force against an existing state to protect civilians. Debates over Libya before the authorization of force, and discussions of the mission both as it continued and afterward show that there remain deep divisions within the international community over key issues in authorizing and implementing R2P intervention. For an emerging norm, perhaps the only thing worse than being ignored is being implemented in a way that reinforces old fears and raises new controversies. The Libyan case already has shaped discussions of possible action in Syria. R2P has been dealt a severe setback, so it will not emerge as a meaningful new norm, will not serve as the justification of new interventions, and may in some cases actually delay the adoption of less coercive responses to human rights violations

U.S. Human Rights Policy in the Post-Cold War Era

Historically, the implementation of US human rights policy has been a case of two steps forward, one step back. From its earliest days, the US has attempted, at least to some degree, to include morality, the protection of individual rights, and the spread of democracy in foreign policy calculations. These efforts became more prominent after World War II. By the late 1980s, human rights concerns were firmly embedded in US foreign policy rhetoric, policy making institutions, and global actions. Dietrich examines US human rights policy in the post-Cold War era