This paper examines the nature of the international responsibilities entailed by the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) principle and explores to what extent these responsibilities are recognized in contemporary international society. R2P entails two sets of responsibilities – one between a state and its own population, and the other between a state and populations in other countries. Focusing on the second relationship, this paper explores the nature of the ‘responsibility’ entailed by R2P, focusing on its quality (what sort of a responsibility is it?), scope (a responsibility for / to do what?) and agency (whose responsibility is it?) – questions that have been contested by scholars and states alike. Illuminating how these three elements speak to and reflect key aspects of cosmopolitan thought, this paper outlines what a more cosmopolitan position on R2P would look like and how it adds normative sharpness to the debate surrounding the principle. Having proffered some tentative answers to these questions, the second part of the paper asks to what extent we can evidence that states and other actors recognize these responsibilities in practice and behave as if there were protection responsibilities across borders.
