¹ UN Doc. A/63/677, Ban Ki-moon, ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the UN Secretary-General’ (12 January 2009).

² Thakur, Ramesh and Weiss, Thomas, ‘R2P: From idea to norm – and action?’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 1:1 (2009), p. 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Bellamy, Alex, The Responsibility to Protect: A Defence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 65 Google Scholar.

⁴ Orford, Anne, International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Thakur, Ramesh, ‘R2P’s structural problems: a response to Roland Paris’, International Peacekeeping, 1:15 (2015), p. 2 Google Scholar.

⁶ Acharya, Amitav, ‘Dialogue and discovery: In search of International Relations theories beyond the West’, Millennium, 39:3 (2011), pp. 619–637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Acharya, Amitav, ‘Who are the norm makers? The Asian-African Conference in Bandung and the evolution of norms’, Global Governance, 20 (2014), pp. 405–417 Google Scholar.

⁷ R2P’s Pillar Three is not restricted solely to the use of military force. Rather, peaceful means is Pillar Three’s default response, followed by the use of force only as a last resort. For a comprehensive discussion of what Pillar Three of R2P entails, see Bellamy, Alex, The First Response: Peaceful Means in the Third Pillar of the Responsibility to Protect: Policy Analysis (Muscatine, IA: Stanley Foundation, December 2015)Google Scholar.

⁸ Ramesh Thakur, ‘R2P’s structural problems: a response to Roland Paris’, p. 6.

⁹ Stuenkel, Oliver and Tourinho, Marcos, ‘Regulating intervention: Brazil and the Responsibility to Protect’, Conflict, Security and Development, 14:4 (2014), p. 395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ These interviews, from June–July 2014 and June–August 2016, covered various aspects related to Brazil’s initiatives and diplomatic efforts at the UN, and included eight Permanent Missions: the UK, US, Netherlands, Australia, Slovenia, India, The European Union Delegation to the UN, as well as several Brazilian diplomats at different ranks, from the Brazilian Mission to the UN.

¹¹ Several IR scholars discuss the discipline’s Western-centrism, for example Acharya, Amitav, ‘Dialogue and discovery’; Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver (eds), International Relations Scholarship Around the World (Oxon: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; Bilgin, Pinar, ‘The ‘Western-centrism’ of security studies: ‘Blind Spot’ or constitutive practice?, Security Dialogue, 41:6 (2010), pp. 615–622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Acharya, Amitav, ‘Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the Third World’, International Studies Quarterly, 55:1 (2011), pp. 95–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Xiaoyu, Pu, ‘Socialisation as a two-way process: Emerging powers and the diffusion of international norms’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5 (2012), pp. 341–367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Norms are defined as standards ‘of appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity’, see Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), p. 891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Norm contestation and the Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:1 (2013), pp. 365–396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ R2P’s Pillar Three refers to the responsibility of the international community to respond, collectively, when states ‘manifestly fail’ to protect their populations, through a range of political, economic, and military tools. The use of force is, therefore, one option available in the Pillar Three toolkit.

¹⁶ See Betts, Alexander and Orchard, Phil, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions’, in Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard (eds), Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Acharya, Amitav, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion: Towards a framework of norm circulation’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:1 (2013), pp. 466–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7 (2009), pp. 71–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ See Bettiza, Gregorio and Dionigi, Filippo, ‘How do religion norms diffuse? Institutional translation and international change in a post-secular world society’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:3 (2015), p. 629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’.

²¹ Ibid., pp. 895–905.

²² Zwingel, Susanne, ‘How do norms travel? Theorizing international women’s rights in transnational perspective’, International Studies Quarterly, 56:1 (2012), pp. 115–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Acharya, Amitav, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 239–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Prantl, Jochen and Nakano, Ryoko, ‘Global norm diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan implement the Responsibility to Protect’, International Relations, 25:2 (2011), pp. 204–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amitav Acharya, ‘Norm subsidiarity and regional orders’; Acharya, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion’.

²⁴ Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’.

²⁵ Catherine Weaver, Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).

²⁶ Badescu, Cristina G. and Weiss, Thomas G., ‘Misrepresenting R2P and advancing norms: an alternative spiral?’, International Studies Perspectives, 11:4 (2010), pp. 354–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Acharya, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter?’

²⁸ Levitt, Peggy and Merry, Sally, ‘Vernacularization on the ground: Local uses of global women’s rights in Peru, India, China, and the US’, Global Networks, 9:4 (2009), pp. 441–461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Krook, Mona and True, Jacqui, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2012), pp. 103–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Wiener, Antje, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009), pp. 175–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Krook and True, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms’, p. 109.

³² Jeffrey Checkel was one of the first to differentiate between ‘norm makers’ and ‘norm takers’, see Checkel, J., ‘Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43:1 (1999), pp. 84–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Acharya, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter?’; Acharya, ‘Norm subsidiarity and regional orders’; Acharya, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion’.

³⁴ Zwingel, ‘How do norms travel?’.

³⁵ Brake, Benjamin and Katzenstein, Peter, ‘Lost in translation? Nonstate actors and the transnational movement of procedural law’, International Organization, 67:4 (2013), p. 729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Stuenkel, Oliver, ‘The BRICS and the future of R2P: Was Syria or Libya the exception?’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 6:1 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kenkel, Kai and Stefan, Cristina, ‘Brazil and the Responsibility while Protecting initiative: Norms and the timing of diplomatic support’, Global Governance, 22:1 (2016), pp. 41–58 Google Scholar; Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’.

³⁷ Patrick, Stewart, ‘Libya and the future of humanitarian intervention: How Gaddafi’s fall vindicated Obama and RtoP’, Foreign Affairs (26 August 2011)Google Scholar; Christensen, Steen, ‘Brazil’s foreign policy priorities’, Third World Quarterly, 34:2 (2013), pp. 271–286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Hehir, Aidan, The Responsibility to Protect: Rhetoric, Reality and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), pp. 180–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Oliver Stuenkel, in particular, has written on this topic, see Stuenkel, Oliver, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur: the Responsibility while Protecting’, in Eduarda P. Hamann and Robert Muggah (eds), Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: New Directions for International Peace and Security? (Brasilia: Igarape Institute, 2013)Google Scholar; Stuenkel, ‘The BRICS and the future of R2P’; see also, McDougall, Derek, ‘Responsibility while Protecting: Brazil’s proposal for modifying Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 6 (2014), pp. 64–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thakur, Ramesh, ‘R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging emerging powers’, The Washington Quarterly, 36:2 (2013), pp. 61–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Tickner, Arlene, ‘Seeing IR differently: Notes from the Third World’, Millennium, 32:2 (2003), pp. 295–324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Latin American countries as norm protagonists of the idea of international human rights’, Global Governance, 20 (2014), pp. 389–404 Google Scholar.

⁴² See Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Stop telling us how to behave: Socialisation and infantilization?’, International Studies Perspectives, 13:2 (2013), pp. 135–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ See, for example, Acharya, Amitav and Buzan, Barry, Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (London: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Mohamed Sahnoun, ‘Africa: Uphold Continent’s Contribution to Human Rights, urges Top Diplomat’ (21 July 2009), available at: {www.allAfrica.com}.

⁴⁵ Badescu, Cristina, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human Rights (Oxon: Routledge, 2011), pp. 122–123 Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Badescu, Cristina and Bergholm, Linnea, ‘The African Union’, in David Black and Paul D. Williams (eds), The International Politics of Mass Atrocities: The Case of Darfur (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 108–110 Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ This resolution welcomed the Secretary-General’s Report on R2P and promised to hold annual debates on R2P, around the subsequent Reports’ themes, see UN Doc. A/RES/63/308 (14 September 2009).

⁴⁸ For more on this, see Rotmann, Philipp, Kurtz, Gerrit, and Brockmeier, Sarah, ‘Major powers and the contested evolution of a Responsibility to Protect’, Conflict, Security & Development, 14:4 (2014), pp. 355–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Badescu, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect, pp. 101–29.

⁴⁹ Brockmeier, Sarah, Kurtz, Gerrit, and Junk, Julian, ‘Emerging norm and rhetorical tool: Europe and a Responsibility to Protect’, Conflict, Security and Development, 14 (2014), pp. 429–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ See Badescu, Cristina and Bergholm, Linnea, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the conflict in Darfur: the big let-down’, Security Dialogue, 40:3 (2009), pp. 287–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Badescu, Cristina, ‘Authorizing humanitarian intervention: Hard choices in saving strangers’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40:1 (2007), pp. 51–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵² UN Doc. S/RES/1894, ‘On Protection of Civilians (POC)’ (11 November 2009).

⁵³ See, for example, Reinhold, Theresa, ‘The Responsibility to Protect – much ado about nothing?’, Review of International Studies, 36:Special Issue 1 (2010), pp. 55–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 65).

⁵⁴ See McDougall, ‘Responsibility while Protecting’; Thakur, ‘R2P after Libya and Syria’.

⁵⁵ See, for example, Thorsten Benner, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur: “Responsibility while Protecting” initiative’, GPPi Working Paper (Global Public Policy Institute, 2013); Stuenkel, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur’.

⁵⁶ Stuenkel, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur’, p. 59.

⁵⁷ While the norm maker, shaper, setter, and taker terminology is often used in the literature, the norm shaper category is rarely defined or discussed in detail. For some recent exceptions, see Sidhu, Waheguru Pal Singh, Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, and Jones, Bruce, ‘A hesitant norm shaper?’, in Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, and Bruce Jones (eds), Shaping the Emerging World: India and the Multilateral Order (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2013), pp. 3–21 Google Scholar; and Job, Brian and Shesterinina, Anastasia, ‘China as a global norm shaper’, in Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard (eds), Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 144–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ Steunkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 392.

⁵⁹ UN Doc. A/66/551–S/2011/701, Brazil, Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, ‘Responsibility while Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept’ (11 November 2011).

⁶⁰ Kenkel, Kai M., ‘Brazil and R2P: Does taking responsibility mean using force?’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 4:1 (2012), pp. 5–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see also Kenkel and Stefan, ‘Brazil and the Responsibility while Protecting initiative’.

⁶¹ Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’.

⁶² Ibid., p. 385.

⁶³ Kenkel, ‘Brazil and R2P: Does taking responsibility mean using force?’, p. 15.

⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 5.

⁶⁵ Interviews conducted in New York, with Brazilian diplomats, June 2014.

⁶⁶ Patrick, Stewart, ‘Irresponsible stakeholders? The difficulty of integrating rising powers’, Foreign Affairs, 89:6 (2010), pp. 44–53 Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Kuperman, Alan, ‘A model humanitarian intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya campaign’, International Security, 38:1 (2013), pp. 105–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ Maria L. Viotti, ‘Informal Interactive Dialogue: The Role of Regional and Sub-regional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’ (12 July 2011), available at: {http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/brazil-stmt.pdf}.

⁶⁹ Brazil, ‘Statement at the Opening of the General Debate of the 66^th Session of the UNGA’ (21 September 2011, available at: {http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/BR_en_0.pdf}.

⁷⁰ UN Doc. S/PV.6650, Brazil, ‘Statement at the Security Council Open Debate on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’ (9 November 2011), pp. 15–17.

⁷¹ UN Doc. A/66/551–S/2011/701, Brazil, Permanent Mission the UN in New York, ‘Responsibility while Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept’ (11 November 2011).

⁷² Ibid., points 11(a)–(i), which sum up the substance of the ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ proposal, emphasises: (a) the importance of preventive diplomacy; (b) the need ‘to exhaust all peaceful means available in the protection of civilians’; (c) the right authority, with the use of force authorized by the Security Council or by the General Assembly in exceptional circumstances; (d) that authorized military action ‘must abide by the letter and the spirit of the mandate conferred by the Security Council’; (e) the proportionality of means; (f) the judicious and proportionate use of force, which is ‘limited to the objectives established by the Security Council’; and (g) that guidelines ‘must be observed through the entire length …’. Point 11 also stresses the need for (h) ‘enhanced Security Council procedures … to monitor and assess the manner in which resolutions are monitored and interpreted’, and (i) the Council to ensure the accountability of those to whom authority is granted to resort to force’.

⁷³ During a private lunch Ambassador Viotti hosted in New York in November 2011, about twenty Permanent Representatives from the Global South, Simon Adams, the Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and Ed Luck, the UN Special Adviser on R2P, rallied support behind RwP, which motivated Brazil to hold the follow-up meeting in February 2012.

⁷⁴ Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2014. See also Stuenkel and Tourinho, who call this ‘the apex of Brazil’s activism’, in ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 396.

⁷⁵ Statement by the President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, at the Opening of the General Debate of the 67^th Session of the UNGA, New York (25 September 2012), available at: {https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/BR_en.pdf}.

⁷⁶ Maria L. Viotti, Statement during ‘Informal Interactive Dialogue’ on R2P at the UNGA, New York (5 September 2012), available at: {http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/brazil-statement-2012.pdf}.

⁷⁷ Statement by Brazil’s Minister of External Relations, Antonio Patriota, at the UNSC Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (12 February 2013), available at: {http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/Brazil%20english(1).pdf}.

⁷⁸ Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 393.

⁷⁹ Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2016.

⁸⁰ Interview with Western diplomat from one of the eight Permanent Missions part of the cross-regional group that worked on the draft UNGA resolution on R2P in 2015–16, New York, June 2016.

⁸¹ Betts and Orchard, ‘Introduction’, in Betts and Orchard (eds), Implementation and World Politics.

⁸² Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2016.

⁸³ My gratitude to Simon Adams, the Executive Director of the Global Centre for R2P, for this formulation.

⁸⁴ Patriota, Antonio de A., ‘Forward’, in Kai Kenkel and Philip Cunliffe (eds), Brazil as a Rising Power: Intervention Norms and the Contestation of Global Order (Oxon: Routledge, 2016), p. xxGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ Brazil, ‘Responsibility while Protecting’, points 11(h)–(i).

⁸⁶ Operative Paragraph (OP) 13, in the text of the draft UNGA resolution dated 11 January 2016, links military mean to mandates that are ‘clear in their goals, their expected duration and procedures for monitoring implementation and reviewing progress’.

⁸⁷ Interview with Western diplomat from a P5 Permanent Mission that opposed the idea of the UNGA resolution on R2P as expressed in the 11 January 2016 draft text (especially because of OP 12 and 13), August 2016.

⁸⁸ This came up in interviews with two UN officials, New York, June 2014.

⁸⁹ Launched in May 2013, the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency (ACT) group comprises 27 small and mid-sized countries working to improve the working methods of the UN Security Council, and to increase its accountability. France has been at the forefront of this initiative, with François Hollande, the President of France, first asking the P5 to ‘collectively renounce their veto powers’ in cases of mass atrocity crimes in his address to the 68^th Session of the UNGA, in September 2013. In his September 2015 address, Hollande announced France will lead the way in voluntarily giving up using its veto in mass atrocity situations.

⁹⁰ See, for instance, Acharya, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion’, p. 466.

⁹¹ Interview with Western diplomat, part of the cross-regional group co-sponsoring the draft UNGA resolution on R2P, New York, June 2016.

⁹² Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2016.

⁹³ ‘OP 12 Emphasizes that the responsibility to protect … must be implemented responsibly’; and ‘OP 13 Emphasizes that, should Security Council conclude that military means are necessary … mandates must be clear in their goals, their expected duration and procedures for monitoring implementation and reviewing progress.’ Draft UNGA resolution on R2P, 11 January 2016, copy with author.

⁹⁴ Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2014.

⁹⁵ McDougall, ‘Responsibility while Protecting’, pp. 78–81.

⁹⁶ India, ‘Statement at the 2012 UNGA Informal Dialogue on R2P’, New York (5 September 2012), available at: {http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/India.pdf}.

⁹⁷ Zongze Ruan, ‘Responsible Protection: Building a Safer World. China Institute of International Studies’ (2012), available at: {www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012-06/15/content_5090912.htm}.

⁹⁸ R2P advocates invited to this event in Moscow, namely Simon Adams, the Executive Director of the Global Centre for R2P, and Jennifer Welsh, the UN Special Adviser on R2P, explained Brazil’s RwP added value in terms of raising ‘important questions about the methodology and motivations of civilian protection operations’, see ‘Remarks Delivered by Dr. Simon Adams at a Conference on “State Sovereignty and the Concept of Responsibility to Protect”: The Evolution of the International Situation and Russia’s Interests’, p. 2 (30 October 2013), available at: {http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/adams-r2p-speech-russia.pdf}.

⁹⁹ Ralph, Jason and Gallagher, Adrian, ‘Legitimacy faultlines in international society: the Responsibility to Protect and prosecute after Libya’, Review of International Studies, 41:3 (2015), pp. 553–573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Interview with UN diplomat, New York, June 2014.

¹⁰¹ UN Doc. A/66/874, Ban Ki-moon, ‘Report of the Secretary-General Responsibility to Protect a Timely and Decisive Response’ (25 July 2012). Section V is entitled ‘Responsibility while protecting’, pp. 13–15.

¹⁰² This specific quote came up in interviews with UN officials from the Joint Office for the Prevention of Genocide and R2P, and analysts from the Global Centre for R2P, New York, June 2014.

¹⁰³ Interview with UN official, New York, June 2014.

¹⁰⁴ Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 395.

¹⁰⁵ See, for example, Crawford, Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Canada is one example of a Western state that has been instrumental in bringing forward the R2P agenda, especially in terms of sponsoring the ICISS in the first place and then promoting R2P around the critical 2005 UN endorsement moment. It subsequently withdrew from norm sponsorship, with the change in government, see Badescu, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect, pp. 126–8.

¹⁰⁷ See Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’, p. 896.

¹⁰⁸ Acharya, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter?’

¹⁰⁹ Acharya, ‘Norm subsidiarity and regional orders’, p. 97.

¹¹⁰ Interview with Brazilian diplomats, New York, July 2014 and June 2016.

¹¹¹ Job and Shesterinina discuss what they call ‘bottom-up-and-back’ processes seen in norm shaping exercises, in regard to China’s engagement with R2P, see Job and Shesterinina, ‘China as a global norm shaper’, pp. 155–9.

¹¹² Pu Xiaoyu, ‘Socialisation as a two-way process’.

¹¹³ Acharya, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion’.

¹¹⁴ See Betts and Orchard (eds), Implementation and World Politics, especially ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions’.

¹¹⁵ This is in line with Betts and Orchard’s approach to implementation as ‘a political process of contestation’, see ‘Conclusions’, in ibid., p. 281.

¹¹⁶ Stuenkel, Oliver, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur: “Responsibility while protecting”’, in Brooke A. Smith-Windsor (ed.) Enduring NATO, Rising Brazil (Rome: NATO Defence College, 2015), p. 129 Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2016.

¹¹⁸ Interview with diplomat from a Western Permanent Mission to the UN, New York, July 2016.

¹¹⁹ Patriota, ‘Forward’, in Kai Kenkel and Philip Cunliffe (eds), Brazil as a Rising Power, p. xx.

¹²⁰ Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger discuss such ‘points of contention’ around ‘change’, in C. Bueger and F. Gadinger, ‘The play of international practice: Minimalism, pragmatism and critical theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015), p. 450.

¹²¹ Duvall, Raymond and Chowdbury, Arjun, ‘Practices of theory’, in Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 335–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²² Adler, Emmanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), p. 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²³ Jason Ralph and Jess Gifkins, ‘The purpose of United Nations Security Council practice: Contesting competence claims in the normative context created by the Responsibility to Protect’, European Journal of International Relations (OnlineFirst, 2016).

¹²⁴ Ibid., p. 10.

¹²⁵ Benner, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur’, p. 6.

¹²⁶ McDougall, ‘Responsibility while Protecting’, p. 75.

¹²⁷ Benner, ‘Brazil as a norm entrepreneur’, pp. 8–9.

¹²⁸ Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 395.

¹²⁹ Interview with analyst from the Global Centre for R2P, New York, June 2014.

¹³⁰ See this argument on norm shapers in regard to India, Baru, Sanjaya, ‘Strategic consequences of India’s economic performance’, in Baldev Raj Nayar (ed.), Globalization and Politics in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Interview with diplomat from a Western Permanent Mission, New York, July 2016.

¹³² Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, June 2016, who mentioned this in the context of Patriota’s personal interest in the topic.

¹³³ As suggested in interviews with Brazilian diplomats and analysts from the Global Centre for the R2P, working closely with the Brazilian Mission at the time, New York, June 2014 and 2016.

¹³⁴ Thanks to Simon Adams for clarifying this point to me on the personal dynamic between Patriota and Evans and the initial promotion of RwP as a joint effort between the two.

¹³⁵ Barnett, Michael and Duvall, Raymond, ‘Power in international politics’, International Organization, 59 (2005), pp. 39–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁶ Ibid., pp. 55–7.

¹³⁷ Stuenkel and Tourinho, ‘Regulating intervention’, p. 393.

¹³⁸ When opening the general debates in September 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively, Dilma Rousseff, then President of Brazil, strongly urged for expansion of the UN Security Council, ‘in its permanent and non-permanent categories … to make it more representative, legitimate and effective’, see statements by the president of Brazil at the 68^th, 69^th, and 70^th Sessions of UNGA (24 September 2013, 24 September 2014, and, respectively, 28 September 2015). At the 71^st session of the UNGA in September 2016, Brazil’s new president, Michel Temer, also reiterated Brazil’s call for Security Council reform. However, RwP was never mentioned again in Presidential statements opening the yearly general debates at the UN after Rousseff’s September 2012 speech.

¹³⁹ Interview with Brazilian diplomat, New York, July 2014.

¹⁴⁰ As suggested in several interviews, the UK and US were not on board and saw no particular value in having such a UNGA resolution on R2P, passing by consensus, interviews with diplomats from several Western and non-Western Permanent Missions, New York, June and July 2016.

¹⁴¹ It didn’t help that Brazil voted in 2010 against a resolution on Iran the US had fought hard for.

¹⁴² For details on the separation of the two, see Betts and Orchard (eds), Implementation and World Politics.

¹⁴³ Thakur, Ramesh, ‘How representative are BRICS?’, Third World Quarterly, 35:10 (2014), p. 1802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.