A growing literature documents the international community's 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) vulnerable populations against mass atrocities during civil wars or other forms of armed conflicts, but relatively little is known about the negotiation strategies key actors employ during the course of political debates when discussing if and how this principle is to be applied in practice. Proponents of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle base their arguments on the primacy of protecting human life against mass atrocities perpetuated either by another group or state authorities. Opponents in turn claim that the principle of national state sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention must be upheld. What position global players such as Europe, the United States, China and Russia take in this debate and what negotiations strategies they employ is not only theoretically relevant for examining how norms are contested and negotiated among members belonging to the international community, but it also holds eminent practical significance for the protection of human life in situations of civil wars and other forms of contemporary violence. Examining similarities and differences in negotiation strategies, preliminary conclusions can be drawn of what works well and what does not, enabling to learn from past positive and negative experiences. The impact of employing responsible negotiation strategies and the unleashing of the normative promise they hold – namely facilitating the finding of a fair, viable, and mutually benefiting consensus among all involved actors – may not only intensify mutual understanding among the involved global players, namely the permanent member so of the UN Security council, but go well beyond by creating a common ground for new alliances of peace and human rights promotion to emerge specifically also with other non-western and developing countries.
