Browse all documents

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

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This policy briefing examines the South African government's position on the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) framework, noting that while South Africa supports the principle of protecting civilians, it lacks a clearly articulated policy and prefers a moderate approach focused on dialogue and conflict prevention over military intervention.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • South Africa supports the general principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P) but lacks a formal, clearly articulated policy, meaning its position is primarily inferred from its actions.
  • South Africa's approach to R2P emphasizes a multi-layered, moderate strategy that prioritizes conflict prevention, resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction through dialogue and engagement, drawing on its own historical experience of a peaceful negotiated transition.
  • South Africa is specifically critical of the 'militarisation' of R2P, arguing that the use of force is sometimes used as a pretext for regime change, a concern highlighted by its reaction to the NATO intervention in Libya following Resolution 1973 (2011).
  • While South Africa has expressed skepticism toward the third pillar of R2P (collective action/intervention), it has continued to support resolutions invoking the first and second pillars, which focus on the state's responsibility to protect its own population and the international community's role in assisting states.
  • South Africa's historical role in promoting R2P includes negotiating the shift from 'non-intervention' to 'non-indifference' in Africa and influencing the inclusion of Article 4(h) in the African Union's Constitutive Act, which allows for intervention in cases of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
  • Pragmatic constraints limit South Africa's ability to enforce R2P, including a lack of political will due to domestic developmental priorities and a lack of military capacity to sustain global operations.

Cite the original document

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} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated