The Responsibility to Protect in Syria. A Motive Analysis of "GIBSA"

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the motives of emerging global powers in decision-making processes concerned with humanitarian crises, and whether the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” has influenced the decisions of GIBSA in UNresolutions concerned with the Syrian Crisis. GIBSA is an unofficial group comprised of Germany, India, Brazil and South Africa, who were part of the UNSC during 2011- 2012 (Brazil 2010-2011), and strive to gain UNSC permanent membership. The data assembled from first hand sources, such as UN-archives, describes the motivations and votes offered during UNSC and GA resolutions concerned with Syria in 2011- 2012. The motives were assumed to build upon the three logics of human action: logic of consequence, characterized by national aspirations, logic of appropriateness described as role-playing and logic of arguing, accounting for norm-suasion. By categorizing the motivations and votes within these three logics, the conclusion suggested that although the actors account for all logics prior to their decisions, their arguments are mainly influenced by norm-suasion and national aspirations, as they argue for the fulfillment of R2P pillars, yet not exclusively for the sake of humanitarian reasons, rather to ensure the support needed for an eventual permanent membership at the UNSC. IBSA also focus on strategic arguing for sovereignty, which correspondingly is in their interests. Role-playing is mainly accounted for by Germany due to its closer affiliation to its allies, but only if peaceful measures are introduced. Hence R2P is accounted for by emerging global powers, but not necessarily for the right purpose.