Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

The omission or failure to act ties in with the responsibility to prevent mass atrocities
from taking place under paragraph 138 of the 2005 World Summit outcome
document, where the responsibility to prevent firstly remains with the state in
question.
This research showed that the term ‘responsibility’ was extensive and not limited to
crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes or genocide. The term included
not only gross violations of international law but also minimum breaches and this
responsibility was globally applicable to any state that has a contract with another
state, with several states or with the United Nations as a whole. These violations and
breaches were not only legally attributable but also internationally enforced by the
courts. This showed that responsibility is inherent in all internationally binding
agreements and any violation of these could in fact bring about a breach in
international law. The failure to act could also pose a threat to international peace
and security depending on the severity of the threat and the violations of the breach in
question. This research shows how the International Law Commission draft articles
on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) is solidly
grounded in international law, leaving no room for debate on its application principles
for courts dealing with international legal breaches. This research clearly illustrates
that the responsibility to prevent and to protect firstly remains with the state in
question. It is deeply grounded in international law protecting both citizen and state
in order to prevent threats to international peace and security.
This brings us to chapter 3 where further research has been undertaken to build on
the responsibility of states in R2P and international law under the jurisdiction of the
Rule of Law.
55