The objective of this paper is to spell out the legal consequences of the concept “responsibility
to protect” (R2P), postulated as a binding legal principle of international law, for the Security
Council and its members. The paper is a thought experiment, because the binding legal force of
R2P is not settled. My argument is that, once R2P is accepted as a full-fledged legal principle,
the Security Council (and its members) would be under a legal obligation to authorize or to take
sufficiently robust action in R2P situations. The paper then discusses the problems engendered
by the acceptance of such a material obligation and suggests a procedural obligation to justify
inaction instead.