Date of Award

5-2026

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

College/School

College of Humanities and Social Sciences

Department/Program

Political Science and Law

Thesis Sponsor/Dissertation Chair/Project Chair

Ian Drake

Committee Member

Anthony Spanakos

Committee Member

Jack LeClair

Abstract

This thesis applies the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework to examine the evolving relationship between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention in the modern international system. It develops the concept of “responsible sovereignty” to show how sovereignty has shifted from an absolute principle of non-interference toward a socially constructed and conditional norm increasingly linked to a state’s responsibility to protect its population. By tracing the transition from Westphalian sovereignty to contemporary understandings of sovereignty as responsibility, the study highlights how international norms reshape expectations of state behavior while also generating persistent tensions in practice. Focusing on the Middle East, the thesis analyzes how R2P operates in complex political contexts, particularly in Gaza and Lebanon, to explain why humanitarian protection mechanisms remain inconsistent in regions affected by conflict and external influence. These case studies demonstrate that although R2P emphasizes civilian protection, its implementation is constrained by geopolitical interests, Security Council limitations, and selective enforcement. The comparative analysis shows that fragmented sovereignty and enduring instability further complicate both the preventive and reactive pillars of R2P. Grounded in constructivist and postcolonial frameworks, the study emphasizes how norms, identity, and historical power structures shape international responses. It argues that humanitarian decision-making is embedded within institutional arrangements marked by unequal power relations, which contribute to selective application. Ultimately, the thesis concludes that political considerations and humanitarian motives operate simultaneously within the same decision-making structures. It finds that R2P, despite its normative importance, risks reinforcing global inequalities when applied inconsistently, highlighting the central tension between legal sovereignty and humanitarian obligation in contemporary international relations.

File Format

PDF

Download

Share

COinS