To Protect or to Intervene? Contesting R2P as a Norm in South Africa’s Foreign Policy

The document examines the tension between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the practice of humanitarian intervention within South African foreign policy. It contends that R2P's 'reaction pillar'—which allows for military intervention as a last resort—is politically and morally divisive. The author argues that South Africa's interests are shaped by a 'logic of appropriateness' rooted in its identity as an African leader and its history under apartheid, leading it to prioritize 'African solutions to African conflicts'. This is exemplified by the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), an African-owned military initiative. The paper concludes that R2P fails to resolve the fundamental question of 'who should intervene and why?', and that South Africa's actions, including its controversial role in the 2011 Libya crisis, must be analyzed through the lens of evolving humanitarian intervention norms rather than R2P alone.

• The 'reaction pillar' of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) establishes a residual responsibility for the international community to intervene when states fail to protect citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, though such intervention is intended as a 'last resort'.
• R2P lacks clarity regarding which specific international actor should execute humanitarian intervention when responsibility transfers from a failing state to the international community, despite the requirement for UN Security Council authorization.
• The African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), championed by President Jacob Zuma in 2011, is an African-owned military initiative designed to respond rapidly to crises on the continent and serves as a building block for the African Standby Force’s Rapid Deployment Capability.
• ACIRC has faced criticism for being an ad hoc mechanism that may undermine collective security by relying on a 'coalition of the willing' and for potentially serving as a tool for South Africa to manage perceptions following the 'Libya debacle'.
• South Africa's foreign policy is influenced by a 'logic of appropriateness' where its identity as an African leader and its history of suffering under the apartheid regime's military force shape its perception of interests and its preference for pan-African intervention.
• The concept of sovereignty as a responsibility and the foundations of R2P are not purely Western imports but emerged in part from African thinkers and politics, including contributions from Francis Deng and Kofi Annan.

APA

Bizos, A. (2015). To Protect or to Intervene? Contesting R2P as a Norm in South Africa’s Foreign Policy. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Policy-Insights-17.pdf

Chicago

Bizos, Anthony. To Protect or to Intervene? Contesting R2P as a Norm in South Africa’s Foreign Policy. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2015. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Policy-Insights-17.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Bizos |first1=Anthony |title=To Protect or to Intervene? Contesting R2P as a Norm in South Africa’s Foreign Policy |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=17 June 2015 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Policy-Insights-17.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{bizos2015protect, author = {Bizos, Anthony}, title = {{To Protect or to Intervene? Contesting R2P as a Norm in South Africa’s Foreign Policy}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2015}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Policy-Insights-17.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }