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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?