R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution

The document examines South Africa's complex relationship with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, noting a tension between its commitment to protecting civilians and its skepticism toward military interventions that may serve as pretexts for regime change. While South Africa helped integrate R2P principles into the African Union's Constitutive Act, its actions as a UN Security Council member—particularly regarding Libya—have led to perceptions of inconsistency. The author argues that South Africa prefers a moderate approach centered on dialogue and regional solutions, constrained by limited domestic resources and a strategic desire to avoid endorsing interventions that could be applied selectively in Africa.

• South Africa does not have a clearly defined official policy on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), meaning its position must be inferred from its recent actions and diplomatic conduct.
• South Africa was a key driver in shifting the African Union's approach from non-interference to 'non-indifference,' contributing to the inclusion of Article 4(h) in the AU's Constitutive Act, which allows intervention in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
• The South African government favors a moderate implementation of R2P that prioritizes conflict prevention, mediation, and dialogue over military force, drawing on its own history of a peaceful negotiated transition.
• South Africa strongly opposes the 'militarisation' of R2P, specifically when the use of force is used as a cover for regime change, a concern highlighted by its reaction to the NATO intervention in Libya following Resolution 1973.
• While South Africa has voted in favor of UNSC resolutions invoking R2P for countries such as Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, these votes were limited to the first and second pillars of R2P and did not sanction the use of force (pillar three).
• South Africa's skepticism toward R2P is distinct from the positions of Russia and China; while the latter emphasize absolute sovereignty, South Africa's critique is more procedural, focusing on the selective application of norms and Western double standards in Africa.
• Pragmatic constraints, including a lack of military capacity and a prioritization of domestic developmental goals, limit South Africa's ability and willingness to enforce R2P operations.

APA

Smith, K. (2015). R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Policy-Briefing-133.pdf

Chicago

Smith, Karen. R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2015. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Policy-Briefing-133.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Smith |first1=Karen |title=R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=March 2015 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Policy-Briefing-133.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{smith2015r2p, author = {Smith, Karen}, title = {{R2P and the Protection of Civilians: South Africa’s Perspective on Conflict Resolution}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2015}, month = mar, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Policy-Briefing-133.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }