About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

22 Global Governance 331 (2016)
What Happened to the Responsibility to Rebuild?

handle is hein.journals/glogo22 and id is 339 raw text is: Global Governance 22 (2016), 331-348 What Happened to the Responsibility to Rebuild? Outi Keranen While significant obstacles to the realization of the Responsibility to Pro- tect in practice remain, it has nonetheless made considerable progress in transforming from an idea to an emerging norm. At the same time, how- ever, its sister component, the Responsibility to Rebuild has elicited less scholarly and policy attention. The lack of attention to rebuilding respon- sibilities has been made all the more urgent by the violent aftermath of the first protection intervention in Libya in 2011. Against this backdrop, the article examines the way in which the Responsibility to Rebuild is un- derstood and operationalized, with reference to Libya and C6te d'lvoire, theaters of two recent protection interventions. The conceptual evolution of the Responsibility to Rebuild reveals a distinct shift toward a more sta- tist understanding of the rebuilding phase; what was initially considered a part of the wider international protection responsibility has come to be viewed as a domestic responsibility This recalibration of the responsibility to rebuild stems from the concept's association with the reactive element of R2P as well as from the changes in the wider normative environment. The more statist understanding of rebuilding responsibilities has mani- fested itself not only in the emphasis on domestic ownership of the re- building process in the wake of protection interventions, but also in the reconceptualization of the wider international Responsibility to Rebuild as a narrower responsibility to assist in building the capacity of the state sub- jected to protection intervention. This has been problematic in policy terms as the attempt to build capacity through the standard state-building measures has resulted at best in negative peace and at worst in armed vi- olence. Keywords: Responsibility to Rebuild, Responsibility to Protect, Libya, CMte d'lvoire THE 2011 INTERVENTION IN LIBYA FAILED TO BRING AN END TO THE DEBATES on the salience of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. While for some the intervention signals the emergence of the principle as substantive norm in international politics,1 others point to the exceptional circumstances under which the consensus to intervene was achieved and thus remain more cautious about the purported normative shift in the protection responsibilities from the state to the international realm.2 Although significant obstacles to the realization of the Responsibility to Protect in practice remain, the principle has nonetheless altered the terms of debate on humanitarian interventions. Not only has it made it harder for states to ride roughshod over their own protec- 331

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most