This chapter examines the beneficiaries of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). It argues that it is imperative that we develop a coherent approach to RtoP beneficiaries so that it can be implemented to serve those who require protection in each case. Part one outlines certain trends in state practice recognising either ‘civilians’, ‘citizens’ or ‘people’ as RtoP beneficiaries. It suggests that some states appear to have used these terms in their legal sense, opening up the possibility that recognition of RtoP beneficiaries could become dependent on whether those requiring protection have formal citizenship of the state, for example. It argues that a ‘citizens’, ‘civilians’ or ‘people’ approach could act to narrow or widen the scope of RtoP, including such wider aspects as its territorial scope. Moreover, it argues that the identity of RtoP beneficiaries could affect our understanding of the broader obligations to which RtoP relates, not least those whom international criminal and humanitarian law recognise as the protected persons of mass atrocity crimes. Part two explains that international actors have recognised RtoP beneficiaries generally on a case-by-case basis, according to the protected persons of the RtoP crime apprehended in each context. It argues that international practice suggests that the identity of RtoP beneficiaries will be variable, depending upon the circumstances at hand. The view is taken that, although logical, this approach could lead to overly legalistic debates regarding whether or not the legal elements of an RtoP crime have been established in each case. Significantly, such an approach could delay the effective implementation of RtoP, potentially undermining any expectation that it could bring us closer to the ideal of ‘Never Again’.

Introduction

Since RtoP's articulation by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001, the issue of the identity of its beneficiaries has been approached in a variable manner. From the Report of the ICISS to that of the former UN Secretary-General, the identity of RtoP beneficiaries alternated between ‘groups’, ‘civilians’, ‘citizens’, ‘people’ and ‘civilian populations’.

During the drafting of the Outcome Document of the World Summit 2005 (WSO Document), states narrowed the identity of beneficiaries to a choice between ‘civilians’ or ‘populations’. One group favoured a ‘civilians’ approach, calling for the section on RtoP to be re-entitled ‘The Responsibility to Protect Civilian Populations’.