I almost completely agree with your article, but here I think you may misstep a bit. Our dealings with each other have to come from somewhere. Otherwise, we may as well just slaughter each other as is convenient. So then--where? You don't really answer the question. No answer can be even worse than a bad answer.

I largely agree with the view that responsibilities are, in fact, primary, and rights are an approximation to that view in the case where our responsibilities are particularly stark. I write about this in some detail here: https://medium.com/@ichoran/responsibilities-are-more-fundamental-than-rights-69c80413d638

Regardless, it is simply not correct to note that because an implementation of a Responsibility to Protect has in notable cases caused more suffering than it has alleviated, that therefore the fundamental concept is unsound.

One would hope that declaring "Responsibility to Protect!" means actually taking on the responsibility with full awareness of what that means, not blowing up a bunch of stuff and leaving a country with no functional government, heavily armed fundamentalists, and badly damaged infrastructure, while patting yourself on the back. If we say the former but do the latter, the problem is not with the idea. It's with the execution.