The conclusion examines three key implications of the study. First, the reading of history which has been offered provides a correction to the conventional story of sovereignty in the discipline of International Relations. Second, this disciplinary correction reframes the present day ethical debate about the rights and responsibilities of sovereignty by confronting the reification of the supposed “traditional” meaning of sovereignty and refuting the claim that the idea that sovereignty entails responsibilities is a recent and perhaps either a dangerous or welcome challenge to this centuries-old conception. Third, the provision of a more accurate history clarifies the real significance of recent developments in international consensus on the notion that sovereigns have a “responsibility to protect” their populations.
Keywords: History, International Relations, Responsibility to Protect, Sovereignty