R2P and the pluralist vs. solidarist debate: An empirical analysis of the initial policies of the P5 on the Libyan and Syrian conflicts through the perspective of the English School

Abstract

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a principle which states that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities, was adopted by the United Nations at the 2005 United Nations World Summit. The humanitarian intervention in Libya in 2011 marked the first time the principle was implemented as a response by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and many thus believed that R2P had “come of age” and assuredly been assimilated as a fundamental principle in international relations. However, the conflict in Syria demonstrated the international community’s inability to effectively respond to mass atrocities, as the UNSC was caught in a deadlock, in which two of the permanent member countries (P5), Russia and China, continuously vetoed draft resolutions. The main aim of this thesis was to evaluate the policies of the P5 countries of the UNSC through an evaluation of their statement at the UNSC meetings, and this thesis therefore consider eight meetings in which draft resolutions were voted upon.The thesis uses the perspective of the English School theory (ES), and its internal debate between pluralist and solidarist viewpoints found in ES institutions, in order to demonstrate the division between the P5 countries, and to answer the question: How do the P5’s justifications for or against humanitarian intervention reflect their pluralist and solidarist values?