BRICS Responses to a Responsibility to Protect Concept: The Search for Consensus?

Discussions about the crisis of peacemaking are an important part of a broader discussion of ways and means of reforming the UN. A new stage in the evolution of peacekeeping is associated with the developing of the concept of "responsibility to protect," which has been widely recognized by world community. At the same time, the concept provokes ambiguous assessments, since the problem of proportional and legitimate use of military force has not been resolved. In practice one can observe the politicization of the concept resulting in the use of the concept as umbrella to hide other political goals of the states concerned. However, despite the general recognition of many organizational, institutional and conceptual shortcomings, it has not yet been possible to agree on further steps towards reform. This is confirmed by the emergence of a large number of groups consisting of UN member states who involved in discussions around the peacekeeping. Such an international forum could be the BRICS, whose members show considerable interest in the problem of the effectiveness of peacekeeping. In order to understand the prospects for Russia's cooperation with BRICS partners, the positions of Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa regarding to the concept of "responsibility to protect" developed within the UN framework are being studied. The article shows that the BRICS states share a number of provisions that include to prevent of a voluntary interpretation of the UN Security Council resolutions at the implementation stage, to develop clear criteria for the use of military force, to establish mechanisms for peacekeeping operations monitoring, to involve regional organizations in UN peacekeeping more actively. At the same time, there are differences between the BRICS states when they interpret the "responsibility to protect". This can be explained by specifics features of their political history and culture, particular regional interests and variety of domestic political factors. Thus, within BRICS there is a platform for cooperation and coordination of activities in UN. At the same time, Russia and China demonstrate the most leading and consistent position with regard to the concept of "responsibility to protect".

1. Bischoff P. (2003). External and Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy Ambiguity: South African Foreign Policy and the Projection of Pluralist Middle Power. Politikon . 2003. Vol.30, No.1, 183–201.

2. Getmanchuk A., Churya K., Litra K. (2014). Reforma mirotvorcheskoy missii v Pridnestroviye: predposylka dlya uregulirovaniya [Reform of Peacekeeping Mission in Pridnestroviye: Prerequisite for Conflict Resolution]. Kiev: Institute of World Policy. 31 P.

3. Higashi D. (2013). Battle at the UN Security Council on peace enforcement in Libya and Syria: focusing on the strategies of BRICS. In: An Occasional Supplement to Journal of global studies. URL: http://globalstudies.doshisha.ac.jp/attach/page/GLOBAL_STUDIES-PAGE-JA-10/80279/file/OS2013_5.pdf (accessed 01.10.2017):83-94.

4. Hodynskaya-Golenischeva M. (2017) Rabota Soveta bezopasnosti OON po siriyskomu krizisu v usloviyah transformatsii sistemy mezhdunarodnyh ontosheniy [UN Security council activity on Syrian crisis under condition of international relation transformation] // Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No.6(57). P. 161-173.

5. Isaenko A. (2015) Voennaya doktrina Rissii b miritvorcheskaya deyatelnost’ [Military doctrine of Russia and peacekeeping]. Nezavisimoye voennoye obozreniye. 2015, 29 May. URL: http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2015-05-29/8_doctrina.htmlJaganathan M., Gerrit G. (2014). Singing the tune of sovereignty? India and the responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 461-486.

6. Kak K. (2012) India’s Grand Strategy for the 1971 war. CLAWS Journal. Summer 2012. P.88-101. URL: http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/1394790936Kapil%20Kak%20%20CJ%20Sumer%202012.pdf

7. Kobzeva M.A. (2017). Si Tszin’pin, ego blizjniy krug I lichniy stil’ rukovodstva [Xi Jinping, His Near Circle, and Personal Style of Leadership]. Vestnik Diplomaticheskoy Akademii MID Rossii. Rossiya I Mir. No. 1. P. 147-159.

8. Konyshev V.N. (2016). Problemy vzaimodeistviya Rossiiskoy Federatsii I Organizatsii Ob’edinennyh natsiy v oblasti mirotvorchestva [Problems of Interactions between Russian Federation and United Nations in the Field of Peacekeeping]. Politeks. Vol.12, No. 3. P. 69-82.

9. Konyshev V.N., Kubyshkin A.I., Sergunin A.A. (2015). Zaschita grazhdanskogo naseleniya v mirotvorcheskoy deyatel’nosti OON: problem i perspectivy [Protection of civilians in UN peacekeeping operations: problems and perspectives]. Natsional’niye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’. No. 26. P. 53-66.

10. Kotlyar V. (2012) «Otvetstvennost’ pri zaschite» i «arabskaya vesna» [Respobsibility to pretect and Arab spring] Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’. No.9. P.99-114.

11. Kozyrev V. (2016) Harmonizing «Responsibility to protect»: China’s vision of a post-sovoreign world. International Relations. Vol.30. No.3. P.328-345.Kumalo D. (2011). A Legacy of the UN and Africa. Developing Dialogue. No. 57. P. 34-38.

12. Kurowska X. (2014). Multipolarity as resistance to liberal norms: Russia’s position on responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 489-508.

13. Landsberg C. (2015). Multilateralism and the UN in South Africa’s foreign policy. Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations. Vol.4. No. 8. P. 43-57.

14. Liu T., Zhang H. (2014). Debates in China about the responsibility to protect as a developing international norm: a general assessment. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 403-427.

15. Lukyanov F. (2014). Perestroyka-2014 [Perestroyka-2014]. Gazeta.ru. URL: http://www.gazeta.ru/ comments/column/lukyanov/5952017.shtml

16. Mabera F., Dunne T. (2013). South Africa and Responsibility to Protect. AP R2P Briefs. Vol.3, No. 6. 11 p. URL: https://r2pasiapacific.org/filething/get/1053/South%20Africa%20and%20R2P%20Ideas%20in%20Brief.pdf

17. Nikitin A. (2016) Mirotvorchestvo OON: obnovleniye printsipov, reformirovaniye praktiki [UN peacekeeping: modernization of principles, reforming of practices]. Mirovaya ekonomika I mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya. Vol. 60. No3. P.16-26.

18. Rothman Ph., Kurtz G., Brockmeier S. (2014). Major powers and the contested evolution of a responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 355-377.

19. Semenyuk A. (2016) Mirotvorcheskaya programma OON “otvetstvennost’ zaschischat’”: opyr realizatsii v Livii i Sirii [Peacekeeping UN Program Responsibility to Protect: Record in Lybia and Syria]. Mezhdunarodnye ontosheniya. No3. P.267-271.

20. Stuenkel O., Tourinho M. (2014). Regulating intervention: Brazil and the responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 379-402.

21. Verhoeven H., Murthy C., Soares de Olivera R. (2014). «Our identity is our currency»: South Africa, the responsibility to protect and the logic of African intervention. Conflict, Security & Development. Vol.14. No. 4. P. 509-534.

22. Wheeler N., Morris J. (2006). Justifying Iraq as a humanitarian Intervention: the cure is worse than the disease. In Sidhu W.P.S., Thakur R. (eds) Iraq crisis and world order: structural and normative challeng es. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. P. 444–465.

23. Zayomskiy V. (2009) Sovremenniye problemy miritvorcheskoy deyatel’nosti OON [Modern problems of UN peacekeeping ]. Polis. No. 2. P.130-138.