The United Nations established a body of law that every state is, in principle, expected to follow—subject to certain exceptions.

At its core lies a principle: the Responsibility to Protect—a universal principle confronted with the reality of power politics.

A principle born from the failures of the 20th century.

Adopted in 2005 by the UN after the massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) rests on a simple idea: when a state does not protect its population—or worse, persecutes it—the international community must intervene. That is the principle as stated. Up to that point, all countries agree.

This principle targets four major crimes:

crimes against humanity

In theory, it marks a break. It limits the absolute sovereignty of states. In practice, its application remains conditioned by politics, not by morality—contrary to what some in Europe and elsewhere would like to suggest, often out of cynicism.

The Iranian case is emblematic. The situation described has persisted for 47 years. No intervention within the diplomatic framework has succeeded in freeing populations, whether in Iran or in Lebanon. Who is willing to deal with terrorists who cause deaths within your own country? No country has acted. Tomorrow, if the regime seeks to appropriate the Strait of Hormuz—an international waterway—what will be said? That no one warned us?

A structured but conditional doctrine

R2P is based on three pillars:

State responsibilityEach state must protect its population.

International assistanceThe international community may assist states.

Intervention as a last resortIf the state fails or becomes a persecutor (Iran, Afghanistan):

military intervention

However, the latter requires authorization from the Security Council. This is where the UN becomes powerless.

This is the tipping point. This is where instrumentalization begins.

The Security Council lock

Five states hold veto........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)