ABSTRACT
The aspects of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine appear to be the gap between the promise and the reality. This chapter explains why there should be such a gap between claims of the importance of R2P and the lack of certainty of what the R2P even means, let alone how it might be turned from an 'idea' into established policy 'practice'. It focuses R2P in the broader context of international disengagement and the desire to shift political responsibility away from leading Western states. The separation between the R2P and the use of coercive force continued the shift of focus of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report; moving further from an emphasis on Western state responsibilities of intervention and towards an emphasis on the responsibilities of the 'failing' state. The gap between the promise and the practice of R2P becomes narrowed once the intention to evade Western responsibility is clarified.
