global responsibility to protect 7 (2015) 401-424 301911 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/1875984X-00704009 brill.com/gr2p The Responsibility to Protect and the Great Powers: The Tensions of Dual Responsibility1 Justin Morris University of Hull J.C.Morris@hull.ac.uk Abstract Since the un’s 2005 adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the five permanent members (P5) of the organisation’s Security Council have been burdened with a spe- cial dual responsibility, entailing a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security, and a special responsibility to assist those imperilled by the mass atrocity crimes of their home state. The tensions which can arise within this dual responsibility is a largely under-explored aspect of the R2P literature. But consider- ation of it helps explain why, despite differing views over how best to balance individ- ual and state rights, at times accentuated by clashing interests, the P5 have nevertheless found common R2P ground, most particularly in their largely concerted opposition to the idea of a ‘responsibility not to veto’ R2P-related resolutions within the Council. Keywords Great Powers – International Order – Dual Responsibility – Responsibility not to Veto Introduction Power and state sovereignty, like state sovereignty and forcible intervention to protect human rights, are often uneasy bedfellows. In debates centred on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – and before them over the rightfulness of humanitarian intervention - attention has tended to focus on the problematic 1 I would like to thank Professor Nicholas J. Wheeler for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Any errors or omissions are, of course, mine alone. 0002609098.INDD 401 9/25/2015 5:53:52 PM