Which statement reflects a criticism of R2P?

The statement that R2P, or the Responsibility to Protect, is often seen as a tool for imperialism highlights a significant critique regarding how the doctrine can be misused by powerful nations. Critics argue that R2P can serve as a pretext for military intervention in sovereign states, where the purported intent is to protect populations from mass atrocities but can be viewed as a guise for advancing national interests or exerting political control. This perspective emphasizes the concern that interventions justified under R2P might lead to unethical outcomes, where the motives behind intervention are more aligned with power dynamics rather than genuine humanitarian efforts.

The other options, while they touch upon various shortcomings of R2P, do not reflect the same level of criticism in relation to perceived unintended consequences. A lack of clear definition can lead to ambiguity in its application, but it does not inherently suggest manipulation for imperialistic purposes. Similarly, the assertion of universal acceptance is not accurate, as R2P is controversial and lacks consensus. Claiming that it has successfully prevented all atrocities is an exaggeration, as R2P’s implementation has faced numerous failures. The core criticism regarding imperialism, however, reflects deeper concerns about sovereignty and the potential misuse of humanitarian motives, making it a prominent focal point