ABSTRACT What accounts for the inconsistency of human protection practice? This article explores the role of motive and intent in determining collective responses to humanitarian crises. The article outlines the purpose and roles of protection agents – with a focus here on states acting collectively – as well as motives and intent. The study finds that, while human protection norms have gained traction and this is reflected in collective practice, responses to humanitarian crises are not consistently motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. Even where there is robust political will to respond to a crisis, intentions may differ among protection agents and can account for variability in the nature of collective responses. A comparative case study of international responses to the post-electoral crisis in Kenya, 2007–08, and NATO’s intervention in Libya, 2011, illustrates these dynamics.

中文翻译：

---

解释不一致：动机、意图和人类保护的实践

摘要 人类保护实践不一致的原因是什么？本文探讨了动机和意图在确定对人道主义危机的集体反应中的作用。文章概述了保护代理人的目的和作用——这里重点关注国家集体行动——以及动机和意图。研究发现，虽然人类保护规范获得了关注，这反映在集体实践中，但对人道主义危机的反应并非始终以人道主义关切为主要动机。即使有应对危机的强烈政治意愿，保护机构之间的意图也可能不同，并且可以解释集体反应性质的可变性。国际应对肯尼亚选举后危机的比较案例研究，2007-08，