After the concept of “responsibility to protect” was included in 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, most proponents maintained that unlike its predecessor, humanitarian intervention, the new concept could be easily adopted as a new international norm. Differences in interests and concerns between the Western Groups and the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), however, have slowed down that process. The present paper tries to offer a better understanding of the concept of “responsibility to protect” by focusing on its quality and evolution and its identity as a norm. It also explains different reactions shown to this concept by western states and members of the Non-Aligned Movement. The author maintains that “responsibility to protect” is based on the theory of universality of justice, protection of human dignity, and promotion of ethics in international relations. Promotion of this concept, however, has been sluggish due to resistance from non-aligned countries against its rapid development into an international norm as they fear the new concept can be used against other countries in an arbitrary and politicized way by western states.
)