⁴ Citizens for Global Action, White Paper, The Responsibility Not to Veto: A Way Forward(2010), http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/Responsibility_not_to_Veto_White_Paper_Final_7_14__2_.pdf Google Scholar

⁵ See, e.g., Umut Özsu, Ukraine, International Law, and the Political Economy of Self-Determination, 16 German L.J. 434, 441–442 (2015) (stating that R2P is not a rule of customary international law); William W. Burke-White, Power Shifts in International Law: Structural Realignment and Substantive Pluralism, 56 Harv. Int'l L.J. 1, 54 & n.318 (2015) (stating that some experts characterize R2P as an “emerging norm” of international law); Thomas H. Lee, The Law of War and the Responsibility to Protect Civilians: A Reinterpretation, 55 Harv. Int'l L.J. 251, 253 (2014) (claiming that the established right of a sovereign to protect its citizens abroad, combined with R2P, “constitute a single customary international law ground for unilateral humanitarian intervention in an unconsenting state where civilians are facing group extermination”).Google Scholar

⁶ Michael Byers, “International Law and the Responsibility to Protect,” in Theorising the Responsibility to Protect 107 (Ramesh Thakur & William Maley eds., 2015).Google Scholar