The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) working group sought to increase understanding of R2P and identify concrete steps to bolster the political will of U.S. decision-makers to respond in a timely manner to threats of genocide, crimes against humanity and other mass atrocities in this emerging national norm. This project became inactive on July 23, 2013. The text below is for archival purposes. 

group

About the Working Group

The Working Group on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a joint effort by the United States Institute of Peace, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the Brookings Institution. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Presidential Special Envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson co-chair the working group, which includes former U.S. government officials, academics, foreign policy experts, political consultants and media professionals. The Working Group aims to:

  1. Enhance understanding of the barriers to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
  2. Assess how R2P has worked in practice in relevant cases
  3. Identify concrete steps to bolster the political will of U.S. decision-makers to respond in a timely manner to threats of mass atrocities

The Report of the Working Group was released in July 2013.

The Responsibility to Protect in Brief

The Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, emerged as a political response to an urgent need, as the international community struggled to formulate an adequate response to the conscience-shocking atrocities committed in Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan, events that turned the end of the 20st Century into one of the bloodiest episodes in modern history. Heads of State and Government affirmed the R2P principle in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, which articulated R2P as having three core pillars:

  • Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
  • The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
  • The international community should take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations.

Under the R2P principle each state has a primary responsibility to protect its population, by ensuring the rights of minorities, addressing institutionalized discrimination, or ratifying international human rights treaties. If the regime is unable or unwilling to fulfill these duties, it no longer operates as a legitimate sovereign, leading to a transfer of responsibilities to the international community to counter acute risks of brutal violence against civilians. The Responsibility to Protect is not a tool, but a guiding principle requiring the consideration of available measures to address the risk of atrocities, in particular preventive diplomatic, legal, and economic measures, as well as reactive instruments short of military action. The use of coercive military force remains a last resort option in case the crimes committed go beyond the pale and there are reasonable grounds to believe non-military and non-coercive options would fail.

Members

Co-Chairs

  • Madeleine K. Albright, Former Secretary of State and chair of the Albright Stonebridge Group
  • The late Richard S. Williamson, Former Presidential Special Envoy to Sudan and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution

Participants

  • David Abramowitz, Vice President of Policy and Government Relations, Humanity United
  • Michael Abramowitz, Director, Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
  • Simon Adams, Executive Director, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
  • Lloyd Axworthy, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Winnipeg
  • Anna Burger, Advanced Leadership Initiative Fellow, Harvard University
  • Louis Caldera, President, Caldera Associates, LLC
  • Ron Capps, Writer and Analyst
  • Wesley K. Clark, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wesley K. Clark & Associates
  • Gregory Craig, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
  • Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Harvard University, JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
  • Eric Edelman, Distinguished Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
  • Gareth Evans, President Emeritus, International Crisis Group/ Chancellor, Australian National University
  • Michelle Farley, Program Officer, Formerly of Wellspring Advisors
  • Elizabeth Ferris, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
  • Jerry Fowler, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Foundations
  • Sherri Goodman, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CAN
  • Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network
  • Bruce Jentleson, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke University
  • Jim Kolbe, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund
  • Juan Méndez, Visiting Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
  • Martha Minow, Dean and Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
  • George Moose, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, United States Institute of Peace
  • James O’Brien, Principal, Albright Stonebridge Group
  • Amir Osman, Africa Regional Manager, Open Society Foundations
  • Nicholas Rostow, Senior Director, Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University
  • Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and Inter­national Affairs, Princeton University
  • Nancy Soderberg, President, Connect U.S. Fund
  • Margot Wallström, Former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, United Nations
  • Vin Weber, Partner, Mercury/Clark & Weinstock
  • Abiodun Williams, President, The Hague Institute for Global Justice
  • Lawrence Woocher, Formerly with Science Applications International Corporation
  • Anne C. Richard was a member of the group until she resigned in March 2012 from the International Rescue Committee to become assistant secretary for population, refu­gees, and migration, U.S. Department of State

Latest Publications

Baghdad Is Ready for a New Chapter in U.S.-Iraq Relations

Baghdad Is Ready for a New Chapter in U.S.-Iraq Relations

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani met last week with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House as part of a weeklong visit aimed at strengthening bilateral relations. The visit occurred amid several historic anniversaries and dangerous developments in the Middle East. April marks the 21st anniversary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Since 2003, the U.S.-Iraq relationship has witnessed many ups and downs. Even as tensions persist, particularly in relation to the U.S. troop presence in the country, al-Sudani’s visit — which featured the largest delegation Iraqis have brought to Washington — demonstrates Iraqi will to start a new chapter in the strategic partnership that goes beyond security.

Type: Analysis

Democracy & GovernanceGlobal Policy

Ukraine’s New U.S. Lifeline: Why It’s Vital and What’s Next

Ukraine’s New U.S. Lifeline: Why It’s Vital and What’s Next

Thursday, April 25, 2024

This week’s U.S. approval of nearly $61 billion in funds for Ukraine’s defense is a lifeline in the Ukrainians’ struggle against Russia’s unprovoked invasion and the assault on peace and rule of law in Europe and beyond. Ukrainian troops have been rationing ammunition, their lack of defensive missiles has exposed Ukrainian cities to Russian aerial attacks — and many military analysts predicted a probable collapse on part of Ukraine’s eastern defensive lines. While this U.S. action boosts Ukrainians’ capacities and morale, ending this war will need further funds, forces and security measures for those fighting and suffering for their survival — and for the redemption of international peace through rule of law.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Sometimes the Good Guys Win: Five Lessons from Guatemala’s 2023 Election

Sometimes the Good Guys Win: Five Lessons from Guatemala’s 2023 Election

Thursday, April 25, 2024

When Bernardo Arévalo won the presidency last year, it left Guatemala’s corrupt old guard reeling. Arévalo and his anti-corruption Semilla Movement posed a direct threat to the power of Guatemala’s “pacto de los corruptos” — an alliance of government officials, politicians, prosecutors, judges, party financiers, state contractors and some wealthy families. The pact mobilized to overturn the election results. But Guatemala’s civil society, backed by U.S. and broader international support, was able to uphold the elections and advance democracy in the Central American nation.

Type: Analysis

Democracy & GovernanceGlobal Elections & Conflict

A Rising Philippines Faces a Crucial Year Ahead

A Rising Philippines Faces a Crucial Year Ahead

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

By virtue of its geography alone, the Philippines is arguably Southeast Asia’s most strategically important country. Yet its actual influence has tended to lag its potential due to decades of socioeconomic struggle and internal instability, especially in its restive southern island of Mindanao. In recent years, however, the Philippines has rapidly emerged as one of the most consequential countries in the Indo-Pacific, driven in large part by President Ferdinand Marcos’ transformative policies on national security, defense and foreign relations.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

China's Vision for Global Security: Implications for Southeast Asia

China's Vision for Global Security: Implications for Southeast Asia

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) marks a new phase in Beijing’s ongoing push to change the international security order. Through the GSI, China seeks to establish itself as a counterbalance to U.S. influence and to reshape security management in a number of strategically important regions. The GSI is still in the early stages of implementation, but it has already demonstrated the potential to disrupt the existing security framework in Southeast Asia. This may lead to increased polarization within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with some member states aligning with the GSI and others remaining cautious due to their stronger affiliations with the United States.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

View All Publications