By PhD Candidate & Senior Tutor, Hoda Asgarian
Recent reports of lethal repression in Iran have renewed international scrutiny of the obligation to protect civilians. This post examines how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) operates in situations of heightened atrocity risk: first, by outlining the current situation and Iranâs record of violent repression; second, by clarifying the legal meaning and practical operation of R2P; and third, by assessing recent international responses (including sanctions, UN action, and factâfinding initiatives) through a civilianâprotection lens.
Recent reports of lethal force used against civilians in Iran have once again brought the countryâs human rights record into international focus. Although the precise scale of the latest killings remains difficult to verify due to information restrictions, there is widespread reporting of live ammunition being used against protestors, mass arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and severe repression. Taken together, these patterns of conduct also raise serious questions under international criminal law, particularly as to whether elements of crimes against humanity are being met, including widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations. While figures remain contested, international reporting and UN discussions indicate very high civilian casualties since late December 2025, underscoring the gravity of the protection risk.
Iranian Regimeâs Record of Repression
What is unfolding today is not an isolated episode. Iran has a documented history of responding to large-scale public protest with excessive and often lethal force. This pattern can be traced across multiple protest cycles over the past decade, including the post-election protests of 2009â10, the nationwide demonstrations of 2017â18, the fuel protests of November 2019, and the protest movements of Women, Life, Freedom that followed in 2022â23. The recurrence of such responses matters legally. It speaks not only to the seriousness of the present moment, but also to the foreseeability of harm and the entrenched risks faced by civilian populations.
Understanding the legal and historical context of repression in Iran helps frame why atrocityâprevention frameworks such as R2P are now centrally relevant.
What is Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a global political commitment endorsed by the United Nations in 2005. It is often misunderstood as a doctrine centred on military intervention however it is much broader than this. At the 2005 World Summit, Heads of State and Government affirmed that all States have the responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities, and identified three pillars on which such shared responsibility rests:
- Pillar One: Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
- Pillar Two: The wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility.
- Pillar Three: If a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.
Under Pillar I, States bear the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. In situations where there is credible evidence of widespread or systematic violence against civilians, R2P becomes legally relevant precisely because the underlying conduct may fall within these atrocity crime categories, even where formal criminal determinations have not yet been made. This is not an independent source of binding obligations but tracks and reinforces pre-existing duties under international human rights and international criminal law. Under Pillar II, the international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling that obligation. Only in exceptional circumstances does the potential question of coercive measures arise under Pillar III, which may be a collective response involving the use of force to provide protection to civilian populations. In practice, R2P is principally concerned with prevention, protection, documentation, and accountability.
Human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law provide the substantive standards against which state conduct is assessed. R2P, by contrast, offers a framework for identifying risk, mobilising assistance, and coordinating international responses when populations face serious harm. It is best understood not as a standalone regime, but as an organising principle that reinforces obligations that already exist. Its value lies in drawing attention to patterns of harm, early warning signals, and the adequacy of protective measures, rather than in creating new legal duties. This makes R2P particularly relevant in contexts marked by repeated repression, where the problem is not a lack of legal norms but their persistent violation.
Seen in this light, the relevance of R2P to Iran today lies not in calls for intervention, but in the adequacy of protection and accountability mechanisms. International fact-finding mandates, documentation initiatives, and efforts to preserve evidence are central to ensuring that serious violations do not disappear into impunity. Sustained diplomatic engagement aimed at civilian protection, rather than purely symbolic condemnation, is equally important. These responses are legally orthodox and sit comfortably within the preventive logic that underpins R2P.
Worldwide concern and condemnation
These concerns have been underscored by recent developments at the United Nations and within regional institutions. On 22 January 2026, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning what it described as the âbrutal repressionâ of protesters in Iran and expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. The resolution called for an immediate end to lethal force and executions, the unconditional release of detainees, and accountability for those responsible for serious abuses. It also urged the Council of the European Union to expand restrictive measures, including asset freezes, visa bans, and to consider the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. It also supported enhanced international efforts, including cooperation with UN fact-finding mechanisms, to document abuses and support human rights defenders. Notably, recent reporting and investigative mandates have explicitly raised the possibility that certain acts committed in Iran may amount to crimes against humanity. As documented by international media and human rights organisations, the focus of ongoing investigations is not limited to individual violations, but to whether patterns of lethal repression, enforced disappearances, and mass detention meet the legal thresholds required under international criminal law.
On 23 January 2026, the UN Human Rights Council convened a special session on Iran and adopted a resolution deploring the violent suppression of protests and the use of lethal force against civilians. The resolution (25 votes in favour, 7 against, and 14 abstentions) extends the mandate of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran and renews international monitoring of serious human rights violations. While such resolutions are not legally binding, they play an important role in documenting patterns of abuse, preserving evidence, and reinforcing international scrutiny. From an R2P perspective, this form of engagement reflects the doctrineâs preventive and protective logic; strengthening accountability mechanisms, signalling heightened atrocity risk, and maintaining institutional attention in circumstances where domestic remedies are unavailable or ineffective. Iranian authorities rejected the UN resolution as external interference, and the divided vote, with states including China and India voting against, underscores the political limits of international protection mechanisms even in situations of heightened civilian risk.
R2P applied to the situation in Iran
While international condemnation and monitoring are crucial, a protectionâfocused analysis must also consider how other non-military actions such as sanctions play a role.
Comprehensive sanctions regimes operate within complex legal and economic systems. While often justified as tools of pressure, they can also produce humanitarian and financial consequences such as overâcompliance, banking restrictions, and reduced access to essential goods. These weaken social resilience at moments of heightened risk. Recognising these effects does not excuse state repression; rather, it underscores the importance of designing international measures that support, rather than inadvertently endanger, civilian populations.
International law has long rejected the idea that responsibility for serious human rights violations can be diluted by reference to external conditions. Structural pressures, whether economic or political, do not alter the attribution of unlawful conduct or the obligations owed to civilian populations. At the same time, a protection-oriented legal analysis requires attention to the environment in which harm occurs. Where external measures predictably constrain access to essential resources or protective infrastructure, they may interact with internal repression in ways that intensify civilian suffering. Acknowledging this interaction does not shift blame. It refines risk assessment and highlights the importance of designing international responses that do not inadvertently undermine the very populations they are meant to protect.
From a civilian protection perspective, the central question is therefore not whether sanctions should exist, but whether they are designed and administered in a manner consistent with atrocity prevention. This includes ensuring that humanitarian carve-outs function in practice, monitoring and addressing over-compliance, and safeguarding accountability mechanisms from the effects of broader financial disengagement. These considerations align with the preventive and protective logic of R2P, which is concerned with reducing risk and safeguarding lives rather than reallocating political blame.
Ultimately, the credibility of international law in moments of crisis depends on its ability to protect civilians without legitimising repression or instrumentalising suffering. Iranâs current situation underscores the need for responses that are legally grounded, protection-focused, and attentive to structural conditions. Properly understood, R2P offers a framework for such responses; one that prioritises accountability, prevention, and the protection of human life over geopolitical posture or symbolic condemnati