India and the Responsibility to Protect: A Constructivist Analysis

India has a mixed stance on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm due to its partial support to only pillars one and two and not pillar three. The first two pillars go hand in hand with the country’s foreign policy on humanitarian assistance. The third pillar that states the responsibility of the international community to protect citizens from mass atrocities using militarily intervention is incompatible with Indian foreign policy’s longstanding commitment to sovereignty and non-intervention. To comprehend India’s stance on the R2P norm, this thesis traces India’s views on the earlier principle of humanitarian intervention. India’s past humanitarian interventions into its neighbours have taught the country that social change cannot be achieved through forced military intervention. While India has always been suspicious of western intentions behind intervention, the R2P norm is also a direct threat to India’s own sovereignty as it focuses on India’s domestic vulnerabilities such...Show moreIndia has a mixed stance on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm due to its partial support to only pillars one and two and not pillar three. The first two pillars go hand in hand with the country’s foreign policy on humanitarian assistance. The third pillar that states the responsibility of the international community to protect citizens from mass atrocities using militarily intervention is incompatible with Indian foreign policy’s longstanding commitment to sovereignty and non-intervention. To comprehend India’s stance on the R2P norm, this thesis traces India’s views on the earlier principle of humanitarian intervention. India’s past humanitarian interventions into its neighbours have taught the country that social change cannot be achieved through forced military intervention. While India has always been suspicious of western intentions behind intervention, the R2P norm is also a direct threat to India’s own sovereignty as it focuses on India’s domestic vulnerabilities such as its human rights situation. Combining Amitav Acharya’s theory of norm localisation and feedback, and Negron-Gonazales’ and Contarino’s theory on compatibility between strategic interests and local norms, this thesis argues that localization of the R2P norm has not been possible in India due to incompatibility of its strategic interests, domestic norms or both with the third pillar of the R2P norm. In order to localize and accept the norm, India has attempted to limit the definition of mass atrocities under the norm to ease the threat on India’s own sovereignty.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

India and the Responsibility to Protect: A Constructivist Analysis