The United Nations established a body of law that every state is, in principle, expected to follow—subject to certain exceptions.

At its core lies a principle: the Responsibility to Protect—a universal principle confronted with the reality of power politics.

A principle born from the failures of the 20th century.

Adopted in 2005 by the UN after the massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) rests on a simple idea: when a state does not protect its population—or worse, persecutes it—the international community must intervene. That is the principle as stated. Up to that point, all countries agree.

This principle targets four major crimes:

crimes against humanity

In theory, it marks a break. It limits the absolute sovereignty of states. In practice, its application remains conditioned by politics, not by morality—contrary to what some in Europe and elsewhere would like to suggest, often out of cynicism.

The Iranian case is emblematic. The situation described has persisted for 47 years. No intervention within the diplomatic framework has succeeded in freeing populations, whether in Iran or in Lebanon. Who is willing to deal with terrorists who cause deaths within your own country? No country has acted. Tomorrow, if the regime seeks to appropriate the Strait of Hormuz—an international waterway—what will be said? That no one warned us?

A structured but conditional doctrine

R2P is based on three pillars:

State responsibilityEach state must protect its population.

International assistanceThe international community may assist states.

Intervention as a last resortIf the state fails or becomes a persecutor (Iran, Afghanistan):

military intervention

However, the latter requires authorization from the Security Council. This is where the UN becomes powerless.

This is the tipping point. This is where instrumentalization begins.

The Security Council lock

Five states hold veto power:

Rwanda → no intervention

Syria → Russia/China veto

Gaza → political deadlock

Ukraine → Russia veto

Libya (2011) → authorized intervention, but one that led to the chaos that still prevails today

Law depends on the balance of power.

Here we are. Like UNIFIL, a largely theoretical “interposition” force between Hezbollah and Israel—often marked by impotence and complacency.

We speak endlessly of “international law” while knowing full well that we have no real means to enforce it. This is therefore a serious and lasting illusion, imbued with cynicism.

Law without enforcement mechanisms

no global coercive power

It depends on states.

These remain principles—swept aside by the member states of the Security Council, which operate solely through power relations. This is far removed from true international law.

but not an automatic mechanism

The instrumentalization of international law

International law is not absent. It is used.

A variable-geometry application

Principles are mobilized according to interests:

invoked to justify intervention

ignored when they constrain

blocked when they are inconvenient

Libya → law mobilized

Syria → law paralyzed

Iraq (2003) → law bypassed

Ukraine → law asserted without enforcement capacity

Law becomes a political language—the cynicism of the powerful.

Structural double standards

Law is not universal in its application. It is conditional.

States are all the more powerless and unable to apply these principles as they invoke international law forcefully to justify their inaction and cynicism in situations that have lasted for decades. Regarding Lebanon, some trace historical ties back to the Crusades, others to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 16, 1916—while conveniently forgetting the Drakkar bombing of October 23, 1983, carried out by Hezbollah.

Who prevented the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia—a small, resource-poor country—from causing more than five million deaths?

Who intervened in Sudan to prevent over 300,000 deaths already recorded—and still ongoing?

Who was able to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan from pushing women back into the Middle Ages?

When did the UN and major powers intervene to put an end to executions, torture, and imprisonment in Iran—or the segregation faced by women in Kabul?

The decisive role of the veto

block an intervention

Law is subordinated to political decision-making.

For 47 years, the regime of the mullahs has imposed a bloody dictatorship on a population of 90 million.

Who has proposed intervening so that this people might finally be freed?

weakening of the credibility of law

return of power as the central factor

use of law as a tool of communication and pressure

The problem is not the absence of law, but the absence of the capacity to enforce it.

Partial and hybrid applications

In most cases, R2P is indirect:

The logic of protection exists, but the legal framework is highly fragmented.

Three models of intervention

Kosovo introduces a key notion: “illegal but legitimate.”

When major powers converge

Agreements are rare, but explainable. Here, the vocabulary shifts: legitimate action.

Kuwait (1991) → oil stability

Afghanistan (2001) → counterterrorism, followed by the withdrawal of all Western countries

Libya (2011) → isolated regime

Somalia (piracy) → global trade

Who actually mobilizes R2P?

Libya → official application

Iraq (2014) → protection of persecuted Yazidis

Mali → stabilization (France has withdrawn)

Central African Republic → protection of civilians

Kosovo → moral justification

Conclusion:Only states capable of intervening actually use this principle.

Iran and Afghanistan: structural limits

2001 intervention: self-defense

humanitarian argument present

Today:no intervention despite the internal situation. Human rights and women’s rights are violated and ignored.

For 47 years, Western countries have emphasized diplomatic action—with no results. The current conflict is a dramatic demonstration of this. The attempted nationalization of the Strait of Hormuz—an international waterway governed by legal treaties—is yet another illustration. From now on, we are and will remain confronted with the denial of law, replaced by power dynamics. Today Hormuz, tomorrow Bab el-Mandeb, the day after Malacca in Asia—global sea lanes turned into toll highways?

The collapse of the country is driven by the presence of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization aligned with the Tehran regime. Corruption is such that the disarmament of this militia—mandated by the UN—cannot be achieved by Lebanese forces alone, which are far too weak. This was known from the outset. Hezbollah, which has never ceased firing on northern Israel, has triggered a highly active war at Tehran’s request, following the involvement of the United States and Israel. The Jewish state must eliminate this permanent threat to its northern region, under constant rocket fire. The operation is underway. Israel alone must resolve this situation, while Lebanon’s longstanding allies have been unable to act for years. Otherwise, the country’s condition would be different.

major strategic stakes

support from Russia/China/Iran

Implicit rule of the system

The Responsibility to Protect exists.

But it operates only in one specific case:when the interests of major powers converge with the moral objective.

R2P is not an automatic mechanism.

And in the real order of the world:power determines when law applies.

For those who have not yet understood or accepted it, law is not morality. Once again, the well-known statement by the late Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons—echoed by Churchill and General de Gaulle—is confirmed: states have no friends, only interests.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)