A-Z of IR: Q is for 'Queer Theory' and R is for 'Responsibility to Protect (R2P)'
Inspired by the British Academy’s focus on Engaging the Public with Humanities and the Social Sciences (2023), in October 2024, Adrian Gallagher (Leeds) launched an A-Z in International Politics online and free of charge. This 26 part series over 26 weeks introduces key concepts such as A is for Anarchy, B for Balance of Power, C for Cooperation and so forth. They are released on Instagram (Prof_Politics), TikTok (Professor_Politics), LinkedIn, and YouTube (@ProfessorGallagher).
In the first few months alone, Instagram generated more than 38,000 views, 2000 interactions and 1200 followers, TikTok 22,243 views, YouTube over 1000 views, and LinkedIn around 10,000 views.
This week we look at the letters 'Q' and 'R'.
Q is for 'Queer Theory'.
The Trump Administration recently passed an Executive Order announcing there were only two sexes in America, male and female
Queer Theory, popularised in the 1990s, offers a broad umbrella covering many disciplines, but at its heart critiques social, cultural, economic and political power. It focuses on themes of sexualities and gender.
We can differentiate between real facts and social facts. The former might be something like gravity, rooted in the natural sciences. If a ball is thrown into the air, we all agree it will come back down. On the other hand, a social fact is something that appears to be real, but is actually socially constructed. Money is a good example. We have constructed an understanding that turns pieces of paper into things that have certain value. Durkheim argued that the whole social world appears to be populated by forces that in reality, exist only in our minds.
This can help us understand why sex and gender are such divisive issues at the moment. Some in society believe that being male and female is a fact rooted in biology. Trump says this is grounded in reality. Others are saying that being male and female is socially constructed. Their lived experience and understanding of reality is very different. Where ever you stand in this debate, it is important to recognise that human bodies and sexualities have become a key political battleground. Who is politicising this, and why? Trump could have passed legislation tackling tax avoidance and wealth inequality instead. Foucault might ask us to consider the relationship between sexualities, knowledge, and political power.
Another thing to consider is that we live in the age of acceleration. Social norms used to change every 30 to 40 years. Now, they change every seven year. This can be deeply unsettling when you have been conditioned to think something all your life, and you are suddenly told it is not a fact.
How do we navigate this? Would it be better to live in a welcoming that upholds values of diversity?
R is for 'Responsibility to Protect (R2P)'.
At the United Nations in 2005, governments unanimously endorsed the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P), which sets out to protect populations from four crimes: Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
It is generally understood to embody three pillars. The first pillar is the most straightforward. The domestic responsibilities that governments have to protect their own populations from these four crimes. The second refers to the international responsibility that governments have. They have to encourage and assist other states to fulfill their domestic responsibility. The third pillar is the most controversial. Failing to protect its population, the United Nations - potentially through the Security Council using all measures under Chapter 6, 7, and 8 of the UN Charter - should act in a timely and decisive manner to bring this violence to an end.
R2P was invoked in 2011, leading to regime change in Libya. Twenty years on, R2P has been invoked in over 90 UN Security Council resolutions. Often they just highlight the first pillar, the domestic responsibility to protect. There have been some success stories. Mass violence was either prevented or significantly reduced in cases such as Kenya, Guinea, and the Central African Republic. There have also been tragic failures, most recently in Sudan, Myanmar, China, Ukraine, and Gaza.
Looking forward, the future for atrocity prevention looks bleak. There are five governments on the UN Security Council who are either enabling or perpetrating atrocity crimes. Further, governments around the world can't seem to agree that the four crimes are actually taking place. This creates a lethal cocktail for R2P, which is meant to rely upon the five permanent members of the Security Council to authorise action.
However, if we can just stop one, or a few cases of mass atrocity, that is good news. One of the key reasons mass atrocities occur is because there have been atrocities in a particular country already. Bringing cycles of violence to an end will have immeasurable positive impact for that country and all the people in it.
Photo by Robert Stump on Unsplash
