Responsibility to Protect Begins at Home, Speakers Tell General Assembly, amid Calls to ‘Act Before Warning Signs Become Mass Graves’
As conflicts proliferate and risks to civilians mount around the globe, embracing the “responsibility to protect” — an international norm aimed at preventing mass atrocity crimes, such as genocide — is more crucial today than ever before, the General Assembly heard today, in its annual debate on the topic.
“Twenty-one years ago, world leaders made a milestone commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,” said Courtenay Rattray, Chef de Cabinet of Secretary-General António Guterres, who delivered opening remarks on his behalf.
Referring to the outcome of the 2005 World Summit, where Member States agreed to unprecedented new parameters for atrocity prevention, he said States remain primarily responsible for the protection of their populations. “However, in cases where national authorities have failed to do so, Member States undertook a promise — a promise to take collective, decisive and timely action in line with the UN Charter.”
The Secretary-General’s latest report on the “Responsibility to Protect” (document A/80/716) — widely known as the “R2P” principle — takes stock of two decades of progress, he said. It includes a clear reaffirmation of States’ responsibility to engage with civil society, international organizations and the UN system to bring their commitments to R2P to life.
He said the document outlines crucial strides made “from the power of preventive diplomacy and dialogue, early warning and innovations to prevent atrocity crimes […] to identifying risks faced by particular populations, to building impartial and independent justice systems that people can trust”. It also spotlights progress in embedding the principle across the UN’s work.
But, the responsibility to protect is not just about policy, he stressed. It underpins work that needs to be done now. In 2025, the world faced more than 120 conflicts, which are becoming more complex and interconnected. Technology is heightening risks to civilians, with autonomous weapons such as drones able to inflict untold damage. “Too often, early warning signs are ignored,” he stressed. “We need to be proactive and vigilant, and act before warning signs become mass graves.”
Throughout the debate, delegates largely expressed support for the responsibility to protect. They highlighted elements ranging from the primacy of national prevention efforts to the impact on “front-line” communities — women, youth, minorities, journalists and human rights defenders. Speakers warned that prevention cannot be “reactive or episodic”, but must be embedded during times of peace, active crises and post-conflict recovery periods alike.
When Protection Fails, Civilians Pay the Price
“When protection fails, it is civilians who pay the price — in lives lost, communities destroyed and entire populations forced to flee,” said Luxembourg’s representative, speaking on behalf of the 55-member Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect.
“Deep geopolitical divisions, inconsistent responses to conflicts and atrocities [and] blatant violations of international law […] have contributed to a widening gap between the international community’s commitment to R2P and its consistent application,” he warned. He added that the collective responsibility to protect populations from atrocity crimes should transcend political divisions, geopolitical rivalries and competing interests, stressing: “Efforts to prevent such crimes must never be conditional, selective or secondary to political considerations.”
The representative of Costa Rica agreed. “At a time of growing geopolitical fragmentation and a weakening of respect for international law […] the prevention of atrocities must not be viewed as an exceptional response to crises, but, rather, as a permanent function of democratic governance, the rule of law and international cooperation,” she said. In addition, she stressed that prevention is most effective when it involves those who first recognize warning signs — affected communities, women, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society.
To Prevent Atrocity, Address Root Causes
Australia’s representative, also speaking for New Zealand, was among those who stressed that “the responsibility to protect begins at home”. National ownership and leadership are crucial, he said, underscoring the importance of capacity building to help Governments and non-State actors understand atrocity risks and triggers.
The representative of Senegal emphasized that prevention requires a clear understanding of history, in order to guard against the recurrence of tragedies rooted in unresolved grievances. In that regard, he said, transitional justice efforts must continue and “lessons learned” should be integrated into national policy.
Indonesia’s delegate said preventing atrocity crimes begins with addressing their root causes — poverty, inequality and human rights violations. “Sustainable prevention is achieved through dialogue, inclusive development and cooperation — not coercion or unilateral sanctions,” he stressed. In addition, he pointed to the case of the Palestinian people, who have been facing an accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing and annexation, and warned the international community not to remain silent.
The representative of Estonia, speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden, agreed that protection is particularly critical for women and children in the Middle East and Ukraine, among other conflicts. New technologies, disinformation and hate speech are placing populations at greater risk. She called for strong prevention, early warning and accountability, and welcomed the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of Aggression against Ukraine, in particular.
Responsibility to Protect Integration across UN Pillars
Croatia’s speaker was among those who stressed that the responsibility to protect must be sustained “across the continuum” from stability and emerging risk to active conflict and post-conflict recovery. The responsibility to protect and atrocity prevention must be integrated across all three of the UN’s core pillars — human rights, peace and security and development — he said, adding: “We hope this understanding will remain central to the vision and priorities of the next Secretary-General.”
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as an observer, echoed many of those points. He spotlighted the crucial role played by the Security Council, calling on all Member States — especially those with veto power in the Security Council — to support the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct and the French-Mexican initiative advocating voluntary restraint in the use of the veto in situations involving mass atrocities.
Mexico’s delegate, also speaking for France, urged all countries to join that initiative, which enjoys the support of 118 Member States. “The veto should not be used to block timely and decisive [Security Council] action that could either prevent or respond to mass atrocities,” he emphasized.
Armenia, Rwanda, Myanmar Share National Experiences, Stress Importance of Accountability
Several speakers shared their own experiences with atrocity crimes or spotlighted national efforts to safeguard against them.
“The Armenian people know all too well the devastating consequences of atrocity crimes,” said that country’s speaker. In 2015, through Armenia’s initiative, the Assembly established the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime. Armenia also leads the biennial Human Rights Council resolution on the prevention of genocide, which promotes an early warning approach and calls for a strengthened genocide prevention mandate.
Rwanda’s delegate pointed out that “atrocity crimes do not begin with mass killings — they begin with discrimination, exclusion, persecution hate speech and the gradual dehumanization of communities”. Following the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in his country, Rwanda made prevention a permanent responsibility of the State.
Today, he said, the greatest challenge is not the absence of early warning, but the absence of early action. For years, UN reports have documented patterns of discrimination and incitement that indicate atrocity crimes, but “those responsible are too often shielded by political considerations”. Prevention can never depend on political convenience and accountability must never be determined by interest, he cautioned.
Myanmar’s delegate said that, since the 2021 military coup in his country, more than 8,000 people have been killed and over 3.7 million displaced. Calling for accountability — including International Criminal Court action, support for transitional justice and a Chapter VII Security Council resolution — he declared: “The international community cannot remain a bystander.”
Nigeria’s delegate said his country pursues prevention through its focus on stabilization and cooperation across all levels of Government. Citing the fight against the terror group Boko Haram, in particular, he stressed the need for partnership over unilateral action.
The representative of the United Kingdom, meanwhile, noted his country’s investments in evidence-based analysis, including through the UN Conflict Risk Analytics Fund and partnerships with research and civil society groups. “No country can meet the challenges set out in the Secretary-General’s report alone,” he said.
Claims of Selective Application
However, not every speaker voiced support for the responsibility to protect. Several delegates raised serious objections to the principle, alleging that it has repeatedly been weaponized by developed countries to exploit developing nations in myriad ways.
Cuba’s delegate, for one, said the responsibility to protect is an example of “an international system marked by power asymmetries”. He pointed to the absence of clear criteria regarding who determines when the principle should be applied, the subjective nature of such determinations and the risk of its arbitrary implementation.
In that regard, he cited the prolonged economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba — worsened by a recent “energy siege” — as one example where stated humanitarian objectives are being used as a pretext for intervention, regime change and the subversion of a sovereign State.
Assembly Adopts Resolutions on Human Rights Council, Africa’s Development, Healthcare
In other business, the Assembly adopted three draft resolutions.
A draft titled “Status of the Human Rights Council” (document A/80/L.86) was adopted without a vote.
Meanwhile, a draft titled “New Partnership for Africa’s Development: progress implementation and international support” (document A/80/L.83) was adopted by a recorded vote of 153 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.
A draft resolution titled “Sustainable and safe water, sanitation, hygiene, waste and electricity services in healthcare facilities” (document A/80/L.71) was adopted by a recorded vote of 152 in favour to 2 against (Argentina, United States), with no abstentions.