Libya: Sovereignty And Security (UN Resolution 1973)

Good day to all the sharp brains of ATS!

I have a paper to write (university), due Thursday (17th) next week and wondered if anyone here was willing to help out with some valuable opinions.
The question goes as follows:

"Why is it so hard to combine sovereignty with measures that are based on the responsibility to protect civilians of a foreign nation?
How could this discussion be applied to the current situation in Libya, especially concerning the measures taken that are based on the UN security counsel resolution 1973 to protect civilian populations?"

Any ideas?
All input would be greatly appreciated. I'll make sure to post my own thoughts here as the work progresses.

Peace y'all


UN press release on resolution #1973

So far I have sketched up the following:

#The risk of so called "mission creep"; that an intervention might drift away from its original purpose into a lengthy campaign.
#The risk that surrounding nations would see an intervention as provocative and step in on the attacked nations (Libya in this case) side and further destabilize the region (as claimed by Peter Wittig (GER) in the supplied link in the OP).
#The risk that sanctions and embargoes would affect the civilian population harder than the regime.

RtoP: Responsibility to Protect

Recognizing the failure to adequately respond to the most heinous crimes known to humankind, world leaders made a historic commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity at the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit. This commitment, entitled the Responsibility to Protect, stipulates that:
1. The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility.

3. The international community should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take stronger measures, including the collective use of force through the UN Security Council.

www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...

”Meanwhile, Libya, as an actor in global politics, is said to be a sovereign state. The Security Council resolution thus “reaffirms its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity” of Libya. Under “normal” conditions, that is, within limits, Libya is recognized as an autonomous actor, capable of self-determining its “internal” and “external” affairs without international interference. On the other hand, the very framing of the state violence unleashed against the uprising citizens of Libya as a potential “crime against humanity” suggests that the limits of state-sovereignty may have been reached. What are these limits, who draws them, and how?”

www.jadaliyya.com

”Thus the implication is that foreign intervention is more likely to occur not in a vacuum (as in state failure), but in direct opposition to a sovereign state. The question then is what to do with the hostile state, short of direct war, which Resolution 1973 does not address. Certain states, such as those in ASEAN, have asserted sovereignty as inviolable. Others, especially the backers of RtoP and the leaders of the current intervention in Libya, have argued that sovereignty is a responsibility that will be forfeit in the event of crimes against humanity.”

Eurasia Review

#Sovereignty; what does it mean and what boundaries are set within the term?

#Does a state have to be democratic to be sovereign?

#Does the UN Security Counsel decide which states are "allowed" sovereignty?

#If a military intervention is exercised against a state in which there is not a political "power-vacuum", can that action be anything else than an act of war? Can the UN Security Counsel wage war on sovereign states?

reply to post by Raud


In addition to # no. 4 in my previous post:

The Security Council allowed itself to be informed by what the International Crisis Group (ICG) in its June 6, 2011 Report on Libya characterises as the “more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators”.

On this basis it adopted Resolution 1973 which mandated the imposition of a “no-fly zone” over Libya, and resolved “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

Thus, first of all, the Security Council used the still unresolved issue in international law of “the right to protect”, the so-called R2P, to justify the Chapter VII military intervention in Libya.

In this context the UN Security Council has committed a litany of offences which have underlined the further transformation of the Council into a willing instrument of the most powerful among its Member States.

Mongane Wally Serote

Now, let me add that the term "sensational reports" might be interpreted as if there where no atrocities being exercised at all in Libya. That is not the case.
I have a hard time understanding Mr. Serote but I think his input is somewhat valid in the discussion.

From the same article:

Contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council authorised and has permitted the destruction and anarchy which has descended on the Libyan people.

At the end of it all:
#many Libyans will have died and have been maimed;

#much infrastructure will have been destroyed, further impoverishing the Libyan people;

#the bitterness and mutual animosity among the Libyan people will have been further entrenched;

#the possibility to arrive at a negotiated, inclusive and stable settlement will have become that much more difficult;

#instability will have been reinforced among the countries neighbouring Libya, especially the countries of the African Sahel, such as Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali and Mauritania;

#Africa will inherit a much more difficult challenge successfully to address issues of peace and stability, and therefore the task of sustained development; and,

#those who have intervened to perpetuate violence and war in Libya will have the possibility to set the parameters within which the Libyans will have the possibility to determine their destiny, and thus further constrain the space for the Africans to exercise their right to self-determination.

reply to post by Raud


Hehe, I don't want to stir up a literal dust storm here (or maybe that is exactly what I want) but the above quotations from Mr. Serote comes from an article with the sub-headline:

LIBYA, AFRICA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER:

For the heck of it, I'll post this as well (from the same article):

As Africans we have predicated our future as relevant players in an equitable system of international relations on the expectation that the United Nations would indeed serve “as the foundation of a new world order.”

Take that anyway you'd like

Anne-Marie Slaughter makes a pretty valid point:

If we really do look at the world in terms of governments and societies and the relationship between them, and do recognize that both governments and their citizens have rights as subjects of international law and have agency as actors in international politics, then what exactly is the international community ‘intervening’ in?

The Atlantic

Let us look at the UN-charter from 1945, article 2, section 7:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The UN Charter

Then we look at the RtoP:

”138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. [...]”

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..."

"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter..."

So how was the Libya intervention and the violation of its sovereignty supported legally?

I think that one reason for why it is so hard to combine respect for sovereignty and the protection of civilian populations from atrocities executed by their regime is that there are no clear guidelines and it would probably be very hard to work such guidelines out in the international community. If such guidelines, made into law or even heavier; a treaty, that would mean that all states must give in their sovereignty to a super-state, such as the UN and always consider the consequences if one would fall in their disapproval; an existence under the constant eyes of a global state. Though a future political system like that might not be as dismal and grim as it firsts sounds, most nations hold their sovereignty high and would probably not negotiate it in a million years.

Okay, just got across some very nice material here.
Hate to fill this thread with too many lengthy quotes but some of this really has to be read in full:

Joshua Foust:

[...]
The concept of viewing both governments and societies as “subjects” of international law is a fairly new one, though in the realm of international law it’s been a fundamental assumption for some time. At the same time, Slaughter’s redefinition of “intervention,” based on the idea that there is no such thing as traditional sovereignty, is a brand new way of glossing over the thorny problems that undermine a policy of humanitarian intervention.
[...]
Much as advocates of the “Responsibility to Protect,” or R2P, like to say that sovereignty is irrelevant to the relationship of a society to its government (which Slaughter explicitly argues), it is that very sovereignty which also creates the moral and legal justification to intervene. For example, the societies of the United States and NATO did not vote to intervene in Libya — their governments did. And if the polls were any indication, the public was very skeptical of the reasons for intervening.
[...]
Among the chief reasons for intervening in Libya was the prevention of a massacre in the eastern city of Benghazi. Despite hazy evidence, at best, this was destined to happen — shelling a few neighborhoods in a civil war is hardly evidence of an imminent Rwanda-style genocide, and other rebel-controlled areas Gaddhafi’s regime has reoccupied did not see mass slaughter — the notion of engaging in preventive warfare has a checkered track record.
[...]

This last part I think is the most interesting, so pay attention:

My biggest objection to the new doctrine of interventionism is that it seem to rely so much on whim. I still don’t understand why we needed to intervene in Libya, but not Yemen and Syria. I have yet to see a framework that guides action. How do we determine when, to borrow Slaughter’s New Sovereignty concept, a government violates its responsibility to its citizens. Defined broadly enough, every government violates some theoretical norm about its own conduct. Did the Clinton Administration rescind its right to govern the country after storming David Karesh’s compound in Waco? Did Kim Jong-Il rescind his right to govern after starving millions of his own people to death through economic mismanagement in the 1990s? These are clearly very different situations, but where is the line, and how is it drawn?

Need to Know (on PBS)

That last part just sums it up; when is sovereignty paramount and in accordance with the UN charter and when is it subject to military intervention?
Is it when the country has valuable natural resources that the intervening nations need/want?
Is it when the country intervened against poses a limited military threat (more picnic than war)?

There are no standards set here and it more and more gives that notion that specific governments decide what actions should be taken and when. I have been bothered for some time that there is nothing done about the situation in Syria that is similar, if not even worse, that what went on in Libya.
I think that it is time to put the cards on the table. Just say it out loud; no, we didn't care for the Libyan people, we cared about cheap oil. No, we don't care about the Syrian people, we care about not setting off World War III with Iran.
At the very least, Gahdaffi is dead, and he did suffer before he died, and the Syrian people keep rising up against their terrorist regime.

Okay, one last post before I open up for the rest of you to fill in.

This is D. P. Trombly writing in his article "Opportunism Costs":

Even among critics of the Libyan intervention, there tends to be some acknowledgement that Libya was where America could make a difference, whereas the United States could not “make a difference” in other, more violent scenes of the failure to uphold the norms of R2P.
This is rather misleading, because the reduction of R2P to a merely opportunistic concept undermines the principles of R2P itself. After all, if R2P is only undertaken when action can cheaply and presumably quickly “make a difference” then it’s not very much of a responsibility.
[...]
The national interest justifications for Libya and Iraq, at least the most powerful ones, were about sending messages and changing perceptions. As Obama said in his March 18 speech to retroactively sell the war:
"[A]s president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
The key problem for American interests was what it would look like for the United States to stand aside. The idea was to send a message to the Arab world that America was on the side of the Arab people – never mind, of course, that the US was decidedly not on the side of those Arabs if they happened to be Saudi, Bahraini, Qatari, or Emirati – and to show dictators that America did not like it when they slaughtered their own people, a lesson which dictators have heard and ignored for the past few decades.
[...]
Intervening when we can to “send a message” encourages the sloppy thinking about US foreign policy which has contributed to our grand strategic insolvency and incoherence in the post-Cold War era. Our concerns with looking tough, looking responsible, looking altruistic, or looking credible lead us to wage or join wars in places where we have very little, if anything, immediately at stake. Fighting wars for narrative or image, as I have argued before, is foolish. Since there is no such thing as “Arab opinion” as a political force, only specific manifestations of the opinions of discrete Arabs within the particular political entities they participate in (just as there is no such thing as European opinion or world opinion in this quasi-mystical sense)[...]

[...]The best thing the Libyan intervention has to be said for it is that instability there is not a US problem even if it takes a particularly nasty form. Libya is not in the heart of the Middle East and does not significantly affect the calculus of many regional powers the way Iraq did. However, pursuing the illusion of a strategic goal at relatively low cost to concrete US interests is merely a milder form of incoherence made palatable by the notion that the US was fulfilling a responsibility it had virtually no intention of fulfilling anywhere else. So, opportunity might answer the question of “Why not Syria?” or “Why not Congo?” but at the end of the day we are still left with the shaky argument for “Why Libya?”

[...]R2P will be just as prone to the geopolitical pitfalls of previous forms of humanitarian intervention and just as unhealthy and confounding for American foreign policy. Recognizing the radical changes such ideas about American power pose to the international order, we ought to be very concerned that these flimsy strategic rationales are the only reward for American interests and that we are supposed to rely on an opportunistic mindset as a bulwark against exhaustive implementation of the doctrine.”

Slouching Towards Columbia

I think this is what I tried to say in my previous post though I don't think there will be a "Syrian opportunity" before an invasion of Iran which in itself is unlikely to happen.
I guess that the US is interested in cheap, or cost-effective, wars now more than ever. The traditional idea of submerging it in sweetest maple syrup for the public to swallow still stands though.
I am sorry, but neither the US nor the European governments care about any population, hardly even their own. They care about their "interests", whichever they might be or become.

So, I should take a break for now. Please contribute as much as you'd like but please try to stick to the question in the OP, mmmkay?

reply to post by Raud

What are these limits, who draws them, and how?

That is probably the most pertinent question of all. At what point does the right of a sovereign nation to control uprising amongst the population cease to be within the bounds of what is perceived to be reasonable? This is crucial. How far can a nation go before it has to tolerate outside interference in it's affairs, and more importantly who decides that?

If, as an example, the American people take up arms against their Government at what point should Russia or China or the other Nations at the UN intervene?

Let us assume for one moment that a portion of the populace is armed and intent on taking control. There is bloodshed involved on both sides in armed clashes. How many people have to be killed or wounded before Europe declares the US a no fly zone and starts bombing? 457? More? Less?

In another example how many people have to be killed by Saudi troops in Bahrain before the United Nations steps in? Answer it will never happen because Saudi Arabia has oil that the US has access to and trades in US dollars.

And another example. How many more citizens in North Korea have to die before the UN steps in? Well we know the answer to that. The UN will not step in as Korea has no oil and has nuclear weapons.

How many people have to die at the hands of the regime in Iran before the US UN steps in? Probably none because Iran has oil the US wants and needs to get in darn quick before it gets the bomb because after that, it will not happen.

As far as I am concerned the facts are that the UN/US/Europe has no right to interfere - and it is pointless saying that we were asked because what happens if American citizens against the Federal Government ask? Does that give Europe the right to (attempt) to trash the US?

Past and present the US/Europe/UK have an appalling record of various atrocities against other countries and populations, yet think they have some God given right to intervene yet further in the affairs of other countries.

Governments, pretty much ALL governments, make me sick!

reply to post by PuterMan


Hello Mr. Puterman and welcome to the discussion!

I agree with all your points here. There are numerous examples on issues that are similar to what happened in Libya that "we" do not care about. Take for example the Kurds; who cares about the Kurds but the Kurds? What can they "give" us? Still, they have suffered tremendously since a long time back in all the countries they inhabit, even European states such as Turkey. What help have they got? None.
R2P is a joke.

The Security Counsel- the armed wing of the UN do not consider humanitarian questions. That's a job for UNHC, WHO etc. They care about security in their own respective nations. They even overrule the UN and make their own pacts within the organization if they have the General Assembly against them.

What then should be done?
One solution I heard of today was to re-organize what states could be permanent members in the Security Counsel. Brazil, Canada, India and Germany were thought to be the new gang. It is an amusing thought but I guess that the old members would probably just move one step above and found something even more powerful, just like the outmanoeuvred the UN in first place.
I guess one thing that is good is the kind of Wikileaks material that surface and that show how these guys really communicate in between. Let us see more cards on the table and less, you know LIES. If it is all for oil, at least say so. Don't hide behind R2P or the UN-charter that has already proven to be without effect.

Please keep contributing to this thread; all kinds of input is of interest.

reply to post by Raud


Interesting information to say the least.

As far as Sovereignty we fall back on, as much as I hate the term, International law and the United Nations Charter. When it comes to the use of military force, people tend to overlook the part in the UN Charter - Article VII which points out that military action can be used without consent from the UN security council. It requires nations engaged in hostilities notify the security council at the eraliest possible moment in an effort to stop escalation.

It also makes note that nothing in the UN Charter can overide, trump , replace, etc etc etc a nations ability to conduct its own affairs (specific to article VII and case by case on additional treaties).

With that being said, and coming back to a humanitarian issue, I would say there are a few different scenarios that are possible, however they must be looked at on a case by case basis. Almost all nations on this planet do not have any type of military doctrine that specifically deals with intervention when only humanitarian issues are present. Ironically the UN Charter, going all the way back to the creation of the UN, does talk about humanitarian issues, including using military force to stop any violations.

Here is the problem -
Sovereignty (as you pointed out) -

• Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
• Royal rank, authority, or power.
• Complete independence and self-government.
• A territory existing as an independent state.

The humanitarian intervention problem reminds me of the US political argument known as the 20/80 issue (albeit for humanitarian intervention I would say it should be the 5/95 issue. What it means is who among the 20 (5) will stand up for the 80 (95)?

According to Amnesty International, a proponent of universal jurisdiction, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole, that states have a logical and moral duty to prosecute an individual responsible for it; no place should be a safe haven for those who have committed genocide,[3] crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.

Should we have an offical International law / UN resolution that allows foreign military intervention for humanitarian issues? If we look at whats on the books already I would say we already have it.
We already have -
* - UNR / International laws governing the treatment civilians during times of war, regardless if its internal or external conflicts.
* - UNR / International laws that prohibit the use of certain type of military weapons.
* - UNR / International laws that specify how combatants are treated when captured.
* - UNR / International laws that specifies what torture is.

I can keep going but you get the idea.

The bulk of the international community are affiliated with the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction is specific only to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes (In 2017 the latest addition to jurisdiction is the crime of aggression). The ICC also utilizes the legal term of Universal Jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction or universality principle is a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

Long story short -
Any nation who is a member of the United Nations has agreed to abide by the UN charter.
Any nation who is a member of the ICC has agreed to abide by its charter.

Countries have agreed to cede parts of its sovereignty by being members of the UN / ICC.

On a personal / moral viewpoint, imo, I believe military force should be considered when only humanitarian issues are present. Sovereignty cannot be used as a shield to justify criminal behavior (fair disclosure my comment here contradicts my view point in a few other threads - case by case).

Sovereignty, in its broad form, was never intended to be used as a shield to justify criminal activities against the people of a nation.

If the government of a nation disregards the welfare of its own citizens to the extent of mass executions / forced famine / complete and total disregard for human life, then that government is criminal.

The countries that see those type of injustices / crimes, and doing nothing to stop it are criminally negligent.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Outstanding!

Longer/better reply to follow when I have time (working atm).

Just wanted to add that the paper is developing just fine, much thanks to the great contributions in this thread and also due to an U2U I received by a member I guess would like to stay anonymous (?).

The doctrine becomes less coherent in a civil war in which one side is winning and promising to slaughter its enemies, Libya being the obvious example. Those intervening can claim to be carrying out a neutral humanitarian action, but in reality, they are intervening on one side’s behalf. If the intervention is successful — as it likely will be given that interventions are invariably by powerful countries against weaker ones — the practical result is to turn the victims into victors. By doing that, the humanitarian warriors are doing more than simply protecting the weak. They are also defining a nation’s history.

There is thus a deep tension between the principle of national self-determination and the obligation to intervene to prevent slaughter.

Immaculate Intervention... (Stratfor)

Killer material dude!


My intention is to share the paper with ATS when it is complete and later tell what grades we got on it.