SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: CAN THE PRINCIPLE ˝R2P˝ REINFORCE PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATIONS OF STATES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Marking the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) principle under the framework of the UN World Summit is an opportunity to reflect on the significance of the principle as a strong political commitment of States to protect their populations from mass atrocities, but also on its legal implications, which are still not entirely clear. On the one hand, it is acknowledged that some elements of the principle do not introduce any new legal obligations on States, other than those already established in pre-existing legal instruments, such as the fundamental treaties of international humanitarian and human rights law, the UN Charter and other legal documents on the responsibility of States, particularly in relation to the breaches of jus cogens and erga omnes obligations. On the other hand, there are still ambiguities pertaining to specific issues of the responsibility of the international community to intervene in another State in case of a manifest failure of national authorities in discharging their responsibility for the protection of civilians facing large-scale atrocities. Since the R2P principle has not gained universal support in State practice twenty years after its formal introduction, it is crucial to discuss its relationship with the existing international legal framework binding on States, as well as its unspecified legal nature.