This paper discusses the blind spot in “Global Responsibilities (GR).” It has been proposed that all humanity shares a GR, which includes the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P).” However, is it actually possible to fulfill responsibilities in a complex, unpredictable world? In fact, even when we attempt to fulfill our responsibilities, we experience repeated failure.In spite of good intentions and noble pronouncements, the discourse on GR did not consider the actual practice of peace-keepers in the field.To overcome the uncertainty and inconsistency that continues, we need to consider the problem of GR from the perspective of practice rather than from one of concept.

This paper clarifies the blind spot of GR according to three points.The first point is the limitations of response responsibility and collective responsibility, which are the constitutive elements of GR.Response responsibility limits the responsibility of responding of those who are actually in a position to respond. Collective responsibility is based on the premise that people have a certain sense of identity within a group, such as a nation, which constitutes the parameters of this collective responsibility.It is doubtful whether this sense of identity exists within the “international community” and, if so, whether it exists to a sufficient degree. The second point is a certain lack of clarity in the actual practice of GR, for example, in R2P.The actual content of GR becomes unclear in terms of “who,” “for whom,” and “what,” when it is put into practice.The third point is that, in practice, the complete responsibility is actually given to the peace-keepers, in that they will be held responsible for harmful consequences.Although GR remains vague from the perspective of conceptualization, those who promote GR pursue the individual responsibility of peace-keepers.

A new institutional design for GR, sufficiently cognizant of the actual practice in the field, is necessary to overcome this blind spot.