Introduction

In this chapter I inquire into the evolution and implementation of the controversial norm of responsibility to protect (R2P) in the international community, with respect to the effects it produces in international customary law. While I consider that the state's security is a constant of international relations and the state remains the main provider of human security (Newman 2001, p. 240; Hynek 2012, p. 96), I look into the changes in the security discourse induced by the norms that emphasize human rights, which impact the core practices of the international system, as reasons for (military) intervention, international security and state sovereignty. I try to determine whether the R2P principle, as derived from human security doctrine, is becoming an international norm that produces effects on the practice of international security and on the meaning of sovereignty, which would be indicative of an increasing role given to the individual in the equation of international security. I observe both the normative evolution of human-centred principles, by identifying their commonalities, their institutional markers and their presence in the discourse of international actors, and the compliance of states with the concept of sovereignty as responsibility. A key objective of this research is to scrutinize the international community's internalization of the normative frameworks of human-centred doctrines, human security and R2P, by testing them on two hard cases: the conflicts in Libya and Syria. The premise is that if states are invoking the conditionality of sovereignty to ensure the security of their citizens and are disposed to act when actors fail to ensure it, then it can be observed that a normative turn has happened in the international system, driven by the R2P principle.

Taking into consideration the current evolution in the international system, which seems to demonstrate a permanence of power politics and the prevalence of the realist interest in traditional security dynamics (hybrid warfare, asymmetric threats, the evolution of post-intervention in Libya and the Catch 22 situation in Syria), there is a tension between the realist and constructivist theories of international relations. This research is possible using a realist constructivist theory (Barkin 2010), which manages to fit the explanations of both the evolution of humancentred norms on the international agenda and the persistence of the realist national interest and the dilemmas of military intervention.