would argue that the manner in which R2P is applied has to be considered through the spectrum of the conflict itself. Both Libya and Cote D’Ivoire represented conflicts which were both time sensitive and feasibly resolvable with military action, in the eyes of the international community. Conversely, Sudan, represented a hugely complex situation with a series of militia groups undertaking attacks over a longer period of time, making mediation, possibly, the most likely resolution due to the embedded nature of conflict. This is to say that in the case of Darfur it could be argued that the UN applied the concept of R2P in the manner they saw to be most fit as it is argued that simple military intervention would have been “dangerous reductionism” of the situations complexity. (Hassan and Ray 2009, p295)

The R2P doctrine in itself is incredibility difficult to assess as a whole, due to inherent differences between conflicts, its application is virtually impossible to standardize. As a concept, however, it both presents an attempt to formulate a coherent plan regarding humanitarian intervention, and an attempt to learn from the costly mistakes of the past. This is a sentiment echoed by UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon who defines R2P as “a concept whose time has come. For many millions of victims, it should have come much earlier.” (Moon 2012) With regard to 21st-century African conflict, I would argue that the impact has been broadly positive. Of course, the criticisms of R2P which can be applied to African conflict, such as the seeming inconsistency of its application, or the problematic issues regarding sovereignty breaches, are undeniable. However, the ability of the international community to undertake a coordinated humanitarian response under the framework of R2P in both Libya and the Ivory Coast demonstrate the intended impact of R2P on conflict in general, that being to protect the human rights of citizens when a state fails in its duty. R2P is in no way a perfect solution, however, it should be considered as a developmental process by which an improved coherent framework on humanitarian intervention, which, whilst not unilateral, has had success in its application in both protecting citizens’ rights and halting developing ‘mass atrocities’.