R2P: A Hollow Promise in Global Conflict Resolution

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) aimed to safeguard populations from atrocities but has largely fallen short. Despite its noble intentions, enforcement remains problematic due to geopolitical interests, especially among the UN Security Council's permanent members. R2P's effectiveness remains questionable amidst ongoing global conflicts.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, designed as a safeguard against global atrocities, has struggled to fulfill its promises, particularly in the face of geopolitical self-interest.

Adopted in 2005, the doctrine's intent was to ensure the protection of populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes. However, enforcement issues, largely influenced by the veto power within the UN Security Council, have significantly hampered its effectiveness.

Critics argue that R2P's aspirations are contradicted by realpolitik, with ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and beyond serving as stark reminders of its limitations.

(With inputs from agencies.)