ABSTRACT

This chapter explores the symptoms of the need to address the limits that have arisen through attempts to implement the responsibility-to-protect concept. Attention in internationalist literature exploring the nature and scope of the responsibility-to-protect concept has focused on the ways in which that concept justifies the expansion of international authority in situations where a state has failed to protect its population. The subsequent International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, titled The Responsibility to Protect, sought to transcend the perceived tension between sovereignty and humanitarian intervention that had divided international responses to the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Much attention has focused on the use of the responsibility-to-protect concept to justify military intervention, but less attention has been paid to the use of the concept to consolidate established practices of international executive rule, such as surveil-lance, early warning, peacekeeping, and administration.