ABSTRACT
In the previous two chapters I noted that while there is growing consensus about the RtoP in principle, in practice RtoP is applied selectively and inconsistently and its use is often contested. As a result, we need to take stock of the emerging politics and practice of RtoP before we can move on to talk about its implementation. Drawing on the analysis in the preceding two chapters, this chapter poses some basic questions about RtoP: (1) What is RtoP’s function? (2) What is the scope of RtoP? (3) Is it a norm and, if so, what sort of norm? (4) What contribution has RtoP made to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities and protection of vulnerable populations? In answering these questions, I am going to argue that RtoP is best seen as an agreed principle that generates policy agenda in need of implementation, that by itself it is unlikely to act as a catalyst for timely and decisive action in response to mass atrocities because its second and third pillars have relatively weak ‘compliance pull’ owing to their indeterminacy. However, the principle has made a positive contribution to both prevention and protection, in ways that do not tend to grab the headlines.
