Introduction

At the cusp of a new millennium, the Secretary-General of the United Nations faced a throng of world leaders and boldly foretold a time in which their state-centric international system might be compromised – or at least reimagined. Kofi Annan essentially urged members of the General Assembly to embrace transformation because the future of the nation rested on the future of humanity, and as things stood, the needs of humanity were not being met. In his annual report he argued that any notions of order and justice, even within defined boundaries, cannot be promised by the state alone. In essence, the catharsis can only come from intervention:

A decade and a half into the twenty-first century, a new Secretary- General addressed the Assembly but on this occasion the message was less provocative. After enumerating escalating and horrific challenges to peace and security, Ban Ki-moon did not refer to the need for a redefinition of sovereignty or intervention. It could be argued that under his predecessor's guidance, the international community had already initiated that discussion during the 2005 World Summit by endorsing the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P). There subsequently appeared no need at this time to confront traditional concepts of territorial integrity and political independence. Ban called upon a collective recommitment to work towards conflict prevention and spoke benignly of building transnational partnerships to do so. Whereas Annan had found opportunity to incorporate a strong sense of moral authority into the groundbreaking R2P project, Ban drew upon mediation and bridge-building skills to shift the spotlight to its implementation. Primary responsibility for tackling their own problems would still reside with governments and their leaders, he stressed, or otherwise engagement in conflict situations would be perceived to ‘undermine their sovereignty, internationalize a problem or legitimize an adversary’ (Ban Ki-moon 2015).