Emerging Powers and the Operationalisation of R2P in Africa: The Role of South Africa in the UNSC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is anxiety over the future of the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This anxiety stems from the controversial nature of the first test case of operationalisation of the ‘responsibility to react’ component of R2P carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya in 2011. The article argues that the Libyan crisis reinforced the claims of states who argue that R2P is susceptible to abuse and this has made it difficult to act in Syria. As a way forward, the paper contends that regional organisations in Africa, led by regional hegemons such as South Africa, should take the lead in the implementation of R2P on the Continent. Drawing illustrations from Libya, the author maintains that South Africa should leverage its membership of brics and other multilateral frameworks to advance the African Agenda at the United Nations Security Council particularly with reference to the operationalisation of R2P in Africa. In order to be able to do this, the paper suggests a reappraisal and recalibration of the R2P implementation framework to give emphasis to regional organisations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".