Implementing the International 'Responsibility to Protect': A Sociological Case Study of the Institutional Practices of the United States Department of Defense toward Operationalizing Humanitarian Interventio

The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was promulgated by the United Nations in 2001 to address the issue of military intervention in the case of gross and systematic violations of human rights by a state to prevent large scale loss of life. This issue reflects a greater international focus on protection of civilians to prevent future atrocities. My research examines how the key departments in the executive branch, specifically, the Department of State (DOS), US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Defense (DOD), have changed policy doctrine and procedures to incorporate these R2P related norms into United States Government (USG) practices between 2001 and 2016. In assessing the extent to which these norms have become institutionally embedded, I address the following questions: (1) What is the institutional environment in which the USG negotiates its mandates regarding the implementation of R2P? (2) How do the distinct institutional cultures of DOS, USAID and particularly the DOD, shape and influence positions on military intervention into humanitarian crises? (3) What is the relationship between the DOD (and its various offices) and the other US departments and agencies as well as civil society with which it works to implement R2P? (4) What processes, procedures and action has the USG implemented to help operationalize R2P? (5) How has the USG institutional action and thinking (focused primarily on DOD and DOS) changed over time, from the emergence of R2P through two US administrations?;These questions help us discern whether and to what extent the R2P norms have been institutionally embedded in to the USG. To empirically explore these questions, I used a mixed methods approach. I examined what is written in the doctrine, policy and documentation of practices of the three departments, from the national level down to the operational level. Conducting a content analysis of over 6000 speeches by the President, and senior leadership of the three departments, I also examine what is said in official speeches and statements. Additionally, I attempted to examine what is perceived by interviewees by conducting over eight hours of semi-structured interviews with practitioners in the USG as well as the United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations to get their perspectives. The key finding of this dissertation is that, after 2010, there has been an increase in the development of formal policies, procedures, and practices emphasizing the protection of civilians against mass atrocity and humanitarian operations. These changes occurred consistently over a sixteen-year period. These changes, I argue, reflect an increased emphasis by the two presidential administrations (Republican and Democratic) on the R2P related norms. I conclude that these normative changes place protection of civilians both within and outside the United States---as a priority for the USG reflected in "sovereignty as responsibility." How the institutionalization of these R2P-related norms shaping the USG practices develop under future presidential administrations, of course remains an open empirical question. But for now, US executive branch action will be operating in a context in which the responsibility to protect civilians is normatively institutionalized not only as an expectation of the UN and many foreign governments and civil society actors, but also within the structures (organizational, political, and cultural) of the United States' key departments and agencies responsible for operationalizing humanitarian intervention.