Cunliffe, Philip (2010) Dangerous Duties: Power, Paternalism and the Responsibility to Protect. Review of International Studies, 36 (S1). pp. 79-96. ISSN 0260-2105.
|The full text of this publication is not available from this repository. (Contact us about this Publication)|
This article provides a critique of Louise Arbour's article ‘The responsibility to protect as a duty of care in international law and practice’. Proceeding through criticisms of Arbour's specific propositions, the thesis is advanced that the perverse effect of the ‘duty of care’ is to undermine political accountability and by extension, political responsibility. It is argued that this is an imperfect duty that no specific agent is obliged to fulfil. This poses insuperable problems of agency that are exposed in Arbour's efforts to actualise the doctrine. As there is no mechanism for enacting the ‘duty of care’, I argue that it will be powerful states that will determine the conditions under which the ‘responsibility to protect’ is discharged. This means that the ‘duty’ will remain tied to the prerogatives of states. In order to resolve this problem of agency, it will be shown how Arbour is forced to replace the idea of law with the principle of ‘might makes right’. The ‘duty of care’ is also shown to have regressive effects on the domestic sphere: the demand that states be made accountable to the international community ends up making states responsible for their people rather than to their people.
|Subjects:||J Political Science|
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Politics and International Relations|
|Depositing User:||T.M.J. Vandenkendelaere|
|Date Deposited:||29 Mar 2010 10:16|
|Last Modified:||09 Jan 2012 11:06|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/23946 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|
- Depositors only (login required):