Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Security Dialogue
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williams, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bellamy, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Responsibility To Protect and the Crisis in Darfur

Paul D. Williams

University of Birmingham, UK & University of Queensland, Australia, p.d.williams{at}bham.ac.uk

Alex J. Bellamy

University of Birmingham, UK & University of Queensland, Australia, a.bellamy{at}uq.edu.au

Governments that have endorsed the ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ approach have shown little inclination to protect civilians suffering at the hands of their own government in the Sudanese province of Darfur. After providing an overview of Darfur’s crisis and international society’s feeble response, we explore why the strongest advocates of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, the NATO and EU states, failed to seriously contemplate military intervention. We suggest that three main factors help explain the West’s unwillingness to intervene in Darfur: increased scepticism about the West’s humanitarian interventionism, especially after the invasion of Iraq; Western strategic interests in Sudan; and the relationship between the crisis in Darfur and Sudan’s other civil wars. We conclude that the emerging norm of humanitarian intervention remains weak and strongly contested, and that advocates of the ‘responsibility to protect’ approach have yet to persuade their governments to help save populations in danger.

Key Words: Sudan • Darfur • intervention • United Nations • African Union

Security Dialogue, Vol. 36, No. 1, 27-47 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0967010605051922
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
C. G. Badescu and L. Bergholm
The Responsibility To Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-Down
Security Dialogue, June 1, 2009; 40(3): 287 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
M. De Larrinaga and M. G. Doucet
Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Human Security
Security Dialogue, October 1, 2008; 39(5): 517 - 537.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Security DialogueHome page
T. Tardy
The UN and the Use of Force: A Marriage Against Nature
Security Dialogue, March 1, 2007; 38(1): 49 - 70.
[Abstract] [PDF]