1. Andrew Garwood-Gowers

2.  BRICS and R2P prior to Libya  BRICS and Libya  BRICS and Syria  BRICS and R2P in the future? Central argument: no cohesive BRICS’ position on R2P since Syria – rather, RC on one side and IBSA on the other

3.  Russia and China – R2P sceptics/rejectionists?  India – ambivalent; concerns over 3 rd pillar  Brazil - R2P not a new norm; emphasised 1 st and 2 nd pillars; warned of risks with 3 rd pillar  South Africa – general support but preference for non-coercive measures eg. negotiation

4. SC Res 1970 (26/2/2011)SC Res 1973 (17/3/2011) RussiaYesAbstain ChinaYesAbstain IndiaYesAbstain BrazilYesAbstain South AfricaYes

5. 1 st vetoed draft SC res 4/10/2011 2 nd vetoed draft SC res 4/2/2012 GA res 66/253 A 16/2/2012 3 rd vetoed draft SC res 19/7/2012 GA res 66/253 B 3/8/2012 RussiaNo ChinaNo IndiaAbstainYes Abstain BrazilAbstainN/AYesN/AYes South AfricaAbstainYes AbstainYes

6.  BRICS unable to maintain a single, unified position on Syria  Split into 2 sub-groups: 1. Russia, China (RC) – strong opposition to any coercive measures against Syria 2. India, Brazil, Sth Africa (IBSA) – more flexible stances, though still cautious about R2P’s 3 rd pillar

7.  RC –likely to continue strong opposition to implementation of 3 rd pillar  IBSA – more flexible, unpredictable stances; remain suspicious about regime change  Brazil’s ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ (RwP) as a way forward? - criticism of RwP has dampened Brazil’s enthusiasm to act as a norm entrepreneur