Background and Aim: Support responsibility includes responsibility, reaction and change. The perspective of support in Kenya and its reflection on the society is examined.
Materials & Methods: The research method is descriptive and analytical.
Ethical considerations: In this paper, the originality of the texts, honesty, and trustworthiness are observed.
Findings: The Responsibility to Protect comprises the responsibility to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. What sets R2P apart from the previously prevailing idea of humanitarian intervention is, first, an emphasis on prevention, and second, a stated preference for a multilaterally coordinated response to crises. The third and perhaps newest feature of R2P is the idea that regional organizations have an important role to play in facilitating conflict resolution and the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. Kenya’s post-election violence.
Conclusion: in 2007 was widely viewed as the first case of ‘R2P prevention’. Kenya was seen as R2P’s success story – multilaterally orchestrated action to prevent an escalation of conflict, with heavy reliance on regional actors. This paper questions to what extent this account holds true, and whether the Kenyan case really was a successful instance of ‘R2P prevention’. An analysis of the Kenyan case ultimately leads to the conclusion that the application of R2P was, in fact, unrelated to the success of the conflict mitigation efforts. The Kenyan context was one which was favorable to the success of the mediation, and it is unlikely R2P would have succeeded without these contingent factors.