The doctrine of the responsibility to protect (R2P) has captured the imagination of the global human rights movement, of human rights scholars,1 and of governments favorably disposed to stronger human rights protection at the UN. The majority of developing countries at the UN, however, continue to be suspicious of R2P. The doctrine has so far been put mainly to rhetorical use but even that is contested by the majority of members of the Human Rights Council who consider it an interventionist concept designed to allow great powers to interfere into the affairs of smaller ones. The scholarly community has invested great hopes in the doctrine,

but it has so far not had much impact on the practice of protection at the UN. The scholarly community has so far not distinguished between two parallel concepts involved here: the first is the broader concept of the protection responsibilities of governments, namely the responsibility of states under the UN Charter, international treaties, and international customary law to implement legal commitments they have undertaken. This is a concept that cannot be challenged. The second concept is a narrower one and hotly contested by the majority of developing countries at the UN, namely, the responsibility to protect, which has been given a rather specialized meaning by the originators of the concept and in the General Assembly’s affirmation in 2005. Somehow, the HRC will need to be guided to implement the first concept, the protection responsibilities of governments, while drawing on the second one, R2P, to the extent possible. At the 2005 World Summit, General Assembly member states had

affirmed the responsibility to protect (R2P) norm.2 The following year,

recommendations thereon.” The assembly also mandated the council to “contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies.” How will the council “address” situations of violations of human rights, prevent human rights violations, respond promptly to human rights emergencies, and discharge the responsibility to protect? For a start, it will need to be faithful to the policies and practice of

the General Assembly on this matter. In 1948, the assembly took a historic decision in determining that it was competent to deal with situations of gross violations of human rights, such as apartheid, which was then in existence in South Africa. The General Assembly made this decision after extensive discussion of the UN’s competence and responsibilities in dealing with such gross violations. Second, the General Assembly, in the mid-1960s, asked that the then

Commission on Human Rights deal with gross violations of human rights in apartheid South Africa, in colonial and dependent territories, and in any other part of the world. In follow up, the Economic and Social Council, in resolution 1235, requested the CHR to deal with gross human rights violations. ECOSOC also, in resolution 1503, requested the commission to operate a confidential procedure for considering petitions charging a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights. The General Assembly, in resolution 34/179, had pledged to act

against mass and flagrant violations of human rights and had requested other United Nations organs to do likewise. In establishing the Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the General Assembly mandated the OHCHR to protect as well as to promote human rights. The Human Rights Council must take forward the challenges of protection. That will be its historic mission.