Solidarism, Pluralism, and the R2P Doctrine in International Relations

Solidarism and the Enforcement of International Rule

The classical English School scholar, Hedley Bull, defined solidarism as the collective enforcement of international rules and the guardianship of human rights. Solidarism is driven by states for the purpose and interests of the people they serve.

In a solidarist order, individuals possess basic rights (e.g., not to be killed or harmed). If harm is being undertaken and the state is unable to prevent it, solidarist theory holds that the members of the international society have a duty to intervene.

The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention in the UN Order

Within the UN framework, the primary problem regarding humanitarian intervention was not the danger that external powers showed no regard for the rules of the game, but instead, how little external powers were prepared to do to protect people against world crimes.

Historical examples highlighting this failure include:

• Genocide in Rwanda (1994)
• Srebrenica Massacre (1995)

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) established conditions for acceptable coercive intervention without the host state's consent. This framework became known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Core Tenets of R2P

• R2P prioritizes the security of the people rather than the security of states.
• Action must be taken to prevent mass atrocities.
• The use of force is considered the last resort.

Did R2P Mark a Shift in International Society?

Did the intervention framework of R2P mark a fundamental shift from a Pluralist conception of international society to a Solidarist one that prioritized the security of peoples?

Limitations and the UN Security Council Deadlock

In reality, there is more responsibility in International Relations (IR) than the pluralist suggests, but less than solidarist desires. The UN General Assembly resisted the idea that intervention could take place without the consent of the Security Council (UNSC), even if that body was unable to agree on a resolution during a clear crisis. However, other actors can take action if the UNSC is deadlocked.

The Pluralist Perspective on Inconsistency

For pluralists, inconsistency in intervention is a signal of competing priorities and complex risk assessments. States may reasonably judge that the costs of taking action to protect a target population may be too great for their own citizens to bear.

The Realist Critique of Intervention

Adherents of Realism believe that forced interventions rarely succeed and often worsen the very problems they were designed to resolve.

The Vulnerability of Solidarism

Of the two conceptual categories (pluralism and solidarism), it is solidarism that appears vulnerable to ongoing transformations. If solidarism is fundamentally about the protection of human rights everywhere, then its days are numbered, as human protection was never intended to uphold the entire basket of rights, but rather the most basic ones.