CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS: Civilian Protection and the Anatomy of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in the 21st Century

CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS 

Proposal Submission Deadline: November 30, 2021 

Title: Civilian Protection and the Anatomy of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in the  21st Century 

Editors: Nicholas Idris ERAMEH, PhD & Prof. Victor OJAKOROTU 

Department of Political Studies & International Relations, North West University,  Mafikeng Campus, South Africa 

BACKGROUND 

Since the post-cold war era, no other international human rights framework has received wider  acceptance like the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (RtoP). The RtoP, which has its roots in the  horrors of Rwanda and Kosovo killings, resonated as a time-honored framework in protecting the  civilian population faced with imminent threats of War crimes, Ethnic Cleansing Crimes against  Humanity, and Genocide. Before adopting the RtoP, a series of arguments and counter-arguments  had dominated discourse regarding its legality, considering state claims to sovereignty as enshrined  in the United Nations charter. Since its adoption via the World Summit Outcome Document of  2005, the doctrine has remained spotlighted among security experts, heads of governments,  diplomats, and even academics. While some scholars have argued that the RtoP marks a landmark  in responding to mass atrocities against the civilian population in the post-cold war era (Evans  2008; Orford 2013), others have raised fears about its implication for state sovereignty (Mamdani  2010; Morris 2015). And some strongly believe that the doctrine is nothing but an extension of  western imperialism (Wai 2014; Branch 2011; Paris 2014). 

OBJECTIVE 

Despite this ongoing contestation, the 2011 Libyan crisis, a direct consequence of the Arab spring,  became the first litmus test for the RtoP. While the method and outcome of the Libyan intervention  have met mixed reactions, the need to authorize the RtoP remains consistently compelling. Apart  from the Libya crisis, the RtoP has been allowed via a series of United Nations Security Council  Resolutions across the globe including Africa. Notable cases of the RtoP intervention include;  Mali, Cote d’ Ivoire, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Nonetheless, several mass  atrocities in Syria, Ethiopia, Cameroun, Myanmar, China, and India have been against the civilian  population with little or no RtoP intervention. Undoubtedly, various emerging and contending  issues have continued to trail the RtoP interventions that have been allowed by the United Nations  Security Council (UNSC) since the 2011 Libyan crisis.  

At the same time, some of these RtoP authorized cases have consistently exposed inherent  institutional, operational, and expectational gaps. These gaps point to the apparent contestation,  which suggests that it is yet to reach norm internationalization phase echoed by Finnemore and  Sikkink in the Norm Life Cycle Model. Therefore, these most problematic issue provides the  basics of carrying out a holistic and comprehensive probing of factors that have accounted for this  failure since its adoption via 2005 WSOD. This book will attempt to examine those cases where  the RtoP has been successful and vice versa. It examines the dynamics and intricacies of RtoP  politics encompassing mobilization and support, expected role of civil society and home 

government, regional dynamics, veto politics, institutional challenges, expectational gaps, and  how they have either helped to consolidate or cause retrogression for the doctrine.  

TARGET AUDIENCE 

Contributions to the book are expected from diplomats, academics, policymakers, civil society  actors, post-graduate students, early career scholars, security experts, researchers and practitioners  across the academic field of Political Science, Peace and Security, Philosophy, International  Relations, History, Law and Sociology.  

RECOMMENDED TOPICS 

Recommended topics include, but are not limited to the following; 

  • Media and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Regional Organizations and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Civil society and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Hegemonic Power and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • The UNSC and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Foreign Policy and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Human Rights, Armed Conflict and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Veto Politics and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • International Law and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Globalization and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Case Study of the Responsibility to Protect Intervention 
  • Operational Challenges of Responsibility to Protect 
  • Expectation Gaps and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • Secessionist Movements and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • The Military and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • The Academia and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • The Genocide Convention and the Responsibility to Protect 
  • International Relations Theory and the Responsibility to Protect 

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE 

Prospective authors are invited to submit an abstract of 300 words to (eramehnicholas@gmail.com or vojakoro@yahoo.com) clearly stating the problem they plan to address, on or before 20th  November 2021. Authors of qualified abstracts will be notified by 20th December 2021 on further  guidelines. Complete chapters of 5000-6000 words are expected to be submitted on or before 15th  April 2022. Submitted chapters will undergo a double-blind peer-review process, by chapter  contributors and other seasoned experts. 

References 

Branch, A. (2011) “The Responsibility to Protect in Africa”, in Critical Perspective of the  Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory and Practice, ed P John, New York,  Routledge, 103- 125 

Mamdani M (2010) Responsibility to Protect or Right to Punish? Journal of Intervention and State  building, 4(1): 53-67 

Morris, J. (2015) The Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force: Remaking the Procrustean  Bed? Cooperation and Conflict, 51 (2): 200 -215 

Orford, A. (2013) Moral Internationalism and the Responsibility to Protect, The European Journal  of International Law, 24 (1): 83 -108 

Reinold, T. (2010) The Responsibility to Protect – Much Ado About Nothing? Review of  International Studies, 36 (1): 55-78 

Roland, P. (2014) The Responsibility to Protect and the Structural Problems of Preventive  Humanitarian Intervention, International Peacekeeping, 21 (5); 569 -603 

Wai, Z (2014) The Empire’s New Clothes: African, Liberal Interventionism and the Contemporary  World Order, Review of African Political Economy, 41(142): 483 -499

, ,

2 Responses to CALL FOR CHAPTER PROPOSALS: Civilian Protection and the Anatomy of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in the 21st Century

  1. Kalilou 10th August 2021 at 11:47 am #

    Bonjour,
    C’est très intéressant! Peut-on contribuer en français?

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.