Linked from

The 36 pages that link to Responsibility to protect, each with the reason it gives.

• PacifismCompared with: Its possible authorization of coercive intervention raises a challenge for strict pacifism.

• United Nations peacekeepingCompared with: Its doctrine concerns atrocity prevention and response, not the routine authority of peacekeeping missions.

• Territorial integrityCompared with: Debates over intervention ask whether protecting populations can justify action across state borders.

• Westphalian sovereigntyCompared with: It can justify collective action when a state's treatment of its population conflicts with non-intervention.

• Sphere of influenceCompared with: Debates over intervention ask whether protection duties override objections to outside influence.

• NATO bombing of YugoslaviaCompared with: This later framework is often compared with, but did not authorize, the 1999 campaign.

• Humanitarian principlesCompared with: Its coercive and state-centered framework differs from principles guiding impartial humanitarian assistance.

• Christian pacifismCompared with: Its authorization of coercive protection challenges pacifist refusals of armed force.

• Non-interventionismCompared with: It permits international pressure or action in circumstances non-interventionists may regard as domestic affairs.

• War of aggressionCompared with: It supports collective action through the Security Council, not a general unilateral exception to the force prohibition.

• Bush DoctrineCompared with: It also contemplates intervention, but centers civilian protection rather than regime change for security.

• Operation Uphold DemocracyCompared with: This later framework highlights the distinct legal and political rationale used in 1994.