Abstract

A global concept known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) aims to prevent and resolve crimes of mass atrocity by reinterpreting state sovereignty to include governments' duties to protect their citizens. R2P emerged from the international community's inability to stop genocides in the 1990s, most notably in Kosovo and Rwanda, and was formally adopted at the World Summit in 2005. But the idea of "humanitarian imperialism," in which strong nations utilize humanitarian excuses to further their geopolitical objectives, has made it more difficult to put into practice. The effect of humanitarian imperialism on the implementation of R2P is examined in this article. Under the guise of advancing democracy, human rights, or stability, strong states might engage in humanitarian imperialism. The case studies of Russia's annexation of Crimea (2014) and NATO's intervention in Libya (2011) are addressed. NATO's intervention in Libya, which was originally justified under R2P as a means of preventing a massacre, soon evolved into a regime change operation, casting doubt on R2P's legitimacy and causing protracted instability. Russia's action in Crimea, which was purportedly carried out to safeguard ethnic Russians, was primarily motivated by geopolitical considerations, demonstrating the extent to which humanitarian discourse may conceal imperial aspirations. Its legitimacy is compromised, and international confidence is weakened, when Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is applied selectively due to political, economic, or strategic reasons. The ability of the international community to stop crimes and defend human rights is hampered by this dynamic. The study makes several recommendations to address these problems, including bolstering global agreement, guaranteeing responsibility, fostering openness, and supporting regional approaches to interventions. The goal of these actions is to reestablish R2P's efficacy and reputation in really defending vulnerable groups.

Keywords