Keywords
Responsibility to Protect
Global South Epistemologies
Colonial History
How to Cite
Abstract
The study aims to identify similarities between India's current approach to humanitarian interventions and the epistemologies of humanitarian interventionism in the global south. While rejecting the Responsibility to Protect norm, it has clearly expressed its stance on external interventions in a civil-war hit state. The study employs a normative analysis within a postcolonial theoretical framework, drawing on global South epistemologies of humanitarian interventionism. The study uses a qualitative method with an interpretative approach. To comparatively evaluate India's response pattern to humanitarian crises, case study reports, UN voting patterns, and foreign policy developments are analysed. India's current non-interventionist stance aligns with epistemologies of humanitarian intervention in the global south, as its postcolonial tradition has shaped its approach.
References
1. Abbas, T. M. (2012, August 23). The Shifting Discourse of the “Responsibility to Protect”. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/23/the-shifting-discourse-of-the-responsibility-to-protect/
2. Bass, G. J. (2015). The Indian Way of Humanitarian Intervention. The Yale Journal of International Law, 40, 228–294. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/67ca9d1e-aed2-4f81-94ea-411e2f58ec1b/content
3. Bommakanti, K. (2017). India’s Evolving Views on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Interventions: The Significance of Legitimacy. Rising Powers Quarterly, 2(3), 99–123. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321310272_India's_Evolving_Views_on_Responsibility_to_Protect_R2P_and_Humanitarian_Interventions_The_Significance_of_Legitimacy
4. Chandra, V. (2021). Explaining India’s Approach to Responsibility to Protect. Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 25(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/09735984211043052
5. Dunford, R. (2025). Decoloniality, dewesternisation, and the Responsibility to Protect. European Journal of International Security, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2025.1
6. Ganguly, S. (2016). India and the Responsibility to Protect. International Relations, 30(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816659593
7. Hall, I. (2018). India and the Responsibility to Protect. In H. V. Pant (Ed.), New Directions in India’s Foreign Policy (1st edn, pp. 172–194). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108562850.010
8. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (with International Development Research Centre (Canada)). (2010). The responsibility to protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (G. J. Evans & M. Sahnoun, Eds). International Development Research Centre.
9. Ivanoic, M. (2019). Echoes of the Past: Colonial Legacy and Eurocentric Humanitarianism. In The Rest Write Back: Discourse and Decolonization (pp. 82–102). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004398313
10. Louis, A. (2023, September 26). From nonalignment to ‘Vishwa Mitra’, a power for global good: Jaishankar outlines evolution of Indian foreign policy Read more at: Https://www.southasiamonitor.org/un-watch/nonalignment-vishwa-mitra-power-global-good-jaishankar-outlines-evolution-indian-foreign. South Asia Monitor.
12. Marcus, M. (2002). Humanitarian Intervention Without Borders: Belligerent Occupation or. Houston Journal of International Law, 25(1). https://www.academia.edu/71575607/Humanitarian_Intervention_without_Borders_Belligerent_Occupation_or_Colonization
13. Paris, R. (2014). The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention. International Peacekeeping, 21(5), 569–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2014.963322
14. Peak, T. (2020). Rescuing Humanitarian Intervention from Liberal Hegemony. Global Responsibility to Protect, 13(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-2020X002
15. Quinton-Brown, P. (2020). The South, the West, and the meanings of humanitarian intervention in history. Review of International Studies, 46(4), 514–533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210520000236
16. Rahmani, H. (2023). The Problem of Military Humanitarian Intervention Selectivity Reinterpreted: A Contrast of Active vis-à-vis Bystander Typical Intervener Actor Complicity. University of California.
17. Richemond, Daphné. (2003). Normativity in International Law: The Case of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention. Yale Human Rights & Development L.J., 6, 45–80. https://gradebuddy.com/doc/1268557/normativity-in-international-law/
18. Thakur, R. (2018). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. In The Oxford handbook on the United Nations (2nd
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 South India Journal of Social Sciences