{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014678899082568808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001834862385321101, 'mean_word_length': 5.861635220125786, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Whose responsibility to protect? The implications of double manifest failure for civilian protection

Civilian protection has become an increasingly urgent issue with which humanitarian practitioners and policy-makers must contend, particularly in relation to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). In a number of recent crises, both the host state and the international community have failed to uphold their respective primary and secondary responsibilities to protect under R2P. In such double manifest failure settings, the actors to whom a disproportionate civilian protection responsibility is most likely to fall are humanitarian actors. This article explores the concept of manifest failure, examines Security Council responses, and analyses the implications for civilian protection. I argue that humanitarian actors cannot reasonably be expected to fulfill a tertiary responsibility to protect that aligns with the United Nation's civilian protection agenda goals, and conclude by discussing how humanitarian actors can work within the limits imposed by double manifest failure cases.