The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All
Evans is one of the leading intellectual forces behind the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect" and this book provides a grand statement of the idea and describes the troubled world setting in which it emerged and its far-ranging implications.
How should the international community act in the face of genocide and humanitarian atrocities? Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, is one of the leading intellectual forces behind the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect," a landmark effort to redefine the norms of sovereignty and interventionism, endorsed by the UN World Summit of 2005. This book provides a grand statement of the idea and describes the troubled world setting in which it emerged and its far-ranging implications. The innovation of the doctrine was to shift the debate from the international community's "right to intervene" to the obligations of states to protect their own people. The norm of state sovereignty is not absolute; when states fail in their duty to safeguard the lives and well-being of their own people, the outside world has a legal and ethical standing to act. The notion of a responsibility to protect is still widely debated, and Evans is at pains to point out the misconceptions of its opponents. He stresses that the doctrine is aimed primarily at establishing not a normative foundation for coercive military intervention but rather a sustained commitment by the international community to work with weak states to prevent the outbreak of mass atrocities. Much of the book is an elaboration of the tools and strategies that are available to intervening states before, during, and after crises break out. The debate on when and how the world should act in humanitarian crises will continue -- and this inspired manifesto will be its essential guidebook.
Related
In this 1999 article, Michael Mandelbaum explains why previous NATO interventions, such as that in Kosovo, had just the opposite effect of what NATO intended, leading to civilian suffering and regional instability. James B. Steinberg replies.
The International Criminal Court took a risk in issuing arrest warrants for Muammar al-Qaddafi and other Libyan officials: it remains unclear whether the warrants will ever be enforced and, beyond that, what effect they will have on the conflict in Libya.
The UN authorization of a no-fly zone in Libya gives teeth to the much-heralded “responsibility to protect." But the intervention poses legal and ethical dilemmas that will plague policymakers in the weeks and months ahead.
This article appears in the Foreign Affairs/CFR eBook, The New Arab Revolt.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.