<P> Political scientist Roland Paris, a proponent of R2P, argues that several problems regarding usefulness and legitimacy inherent to R2P make it vulnerable to criticism: "the more R2P is employed as a basis for military action, the more likely it is to be discredited, but paradoxically, the same will hold true if R2P's coercive tools go unused ." Paris lists the following problems as inherent to R2P, making it difficult for proponents of R2P to defend R2P and emboldening critics: </P> <Ul> <Li> The mixed - motives problem--The legitimacy of R2P rests upon its altruistic aim . However, states will often be wary to engage in humanitarian intervention unless the intervention is partly rooted in self - interest . The appearance that the intervention is not strictly altruistic consequently leads some to question its legitimacy . </Li> <Li> The counterfactual problem--When R2P is successful, there will not be any clear - cut evidence of its success: a mass atrocity that did not occur but would have occurred without intervention . Defenders of R2P consequently have to rely on counterfactual arguments . </Li> <Li> The conspicuous harm problem--While the benefits of the intervention will not be clearly visible, the destructiveness and costs of the intervention will be visible . This makes it more difficult for proponents of the intervention to defend the intervention . The destruction caused by the intervention also makes some question the legitimacy of the intervention due to the stated purpose of preventing harm . </Li> <Li> The end - state problem--Humanitarian intervention is prone to expand the mission beyond simply averting mass atrocities . When successful at averting mass atrocities, the intervenors will often be forced to take upon themselves more expansive mandates to ensure that threatened populations will be safe after the intervenors leave . </Li> <Li> The inconsistency problem--Due to the aforementioned problems, in addition to the belief that a particular military action is likely to cause more harm than good, states may fail to act in situations where mass atrocities loom . The failure to intervene in any and all situations where there is a risk of mass atrocities lead to charges of inconsistency . </Li> </Ul> <Li> The mixed - motives problem--The legitimacy of R2P rests upon its altruistic aim . However, states will often be wary to engage in humanitarian intervention unless the intervention is partly rooted in self - interest . The appearance that the intervention is not strictly altruistic consequently leads some to question its legitimacy . </Li> <Li> The counterfactual problem--When R2P is successful, there will not be any clear - cut evidence of its success: a mass atrocity that did not occur but would have occurred without intervention . Defenders of R2P consequently have to rely on counterfactual arguments . </Li>

Who is responsible to protect the basic right given by state