Today R2P is increasingly championed as primarily concerned with prevention. Indeed, according to Thomas Weiss, prior to the intervention in Libya, supporters of R2P orientated the debate in such a way that there was a ‘virtually exclusive emphasis on prevention’ (2011, p. 1). While this does not constitute a totally illogical focus on an unrelated issue, this chapter argues that this new direction for, if not reinvention of, the concept is a dereliction of the concept’s original
. As noted in the first sentence of the 2001 ICISS report the origins of R2P stem from the debate surrounding the issue of militarily responding to, rather than holistically preventing, intra-state crises:
This report is about the so-called right of ‘humanitarian intervention’: the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive — and in particular military — action, against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state. (ICISS, 2001a, p. vii)
The increased emphasis on prevention is, I argue, indicative of R2P’s failure, as detailed in the previous chapter, to affect change in the laws, procedures and institutions regulating the response of the international community.