{"title":"THE EU AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: CASE STUDIES ON THE EU’S RESPONSE TO MASS ATROCITIES IN LIBYA, SOUTH SUDAN AND MYANMAR","authors":"D. Dvornichenko, V. Barskyy","doi":"10.22598/iele.2020.7.1.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the study of the evolution of the European Union (EU) approach towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The paper refers to the case study method used to assess the EU’s capacity to respond adequately to the particular mass atrocity cases – Libya, South Sudan, and Myanmar. The methodology of the paper is based on a discursive analytical approach, which requires a thorough examination of the official declarations, statements, and resolutions adopted by the EU in the scope of EU foreign and security policy. The article focuses on clear dis-tinctions between the EU’s approach to these cases, reveals several weaknesses and hidden reputational risks in the EU’s response to mass atrocity situations as well as offers several recommendations on how to overcome identified deficiencies.","PeriodicalId":52280,"journal":{"name":"InterEULawEast","volume":"721 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"InterEULawEast","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22598/iele.2020.7.1.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the evolution of the European Union (EU) approach towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The paper refers to the case study method used to assess the EU’s capacity to respond adequately to the particular mass atrocity cases – Libya, South Sudan, and Myanmar. The methodology of the paper is based on a discursive analytical approach, which requires a thorough examination of the official declarations, statements, and resolutions adopted by the EU in the scope of EU foreign and security policy. The article focuses on clear dis-tinctions between the EU’s approach to these cases, reveals several weaknesses and hidden reputational risks in the EU’s response to mass atrocity situations as well as offers several recommendations on how to overcome identified deficiencies.