Role of International Organizations in Libya

Public International Law

Shashank G.

Abstract
Human life is precious and is capable of many wonders. At no point of time can human lives be
violated. Every State has a duty to protect human lives. But there have been many instances
where humans are killed by the number and perhaps there will be many more such bloody
instances. Quest for power is mostly the reason for such bloodshed. In such circumstances,
others spectators countries have a duty to intervene and do whats possible to save innocent
civilians. This is called humanitarian intervention. It is a concept under which countries are
justified in breaching a States sovereignty in order to end human-rights violation with the use of
military forces. Humanitarian intervention if rightly used can be an effective tool in the hands of
the international community to curb human rights violation. The concept has evolved in time and
is still in the process of evolution. This concept is based on the doctrine of responsibility to
protect. Humanitarian intervention is not always successful. At times it only aggravates the
bloodshed. NATOs intervention in Libya is an example where it was a success. Humanitarian
intervention was called for when people were killed in large numbers when they tried to oust the
then dictator Colonel Gaddafi. The UN passed a resolution and thus NATO initiated the
intervention. The intervention was a success and ended in October 2011.

Introduction
What is Humanitarian Intervention?
Humanitarian intervention is a concept based on humanity. It recognizes a States right to
international control over the acts of another in regard to its internal sovereignty when there is a
clear violation of human rights.1 Human rights are so important that even intervention by State
into the sovereignty is justified in order to protect the innocent. In other words, it means a States
right to intervene breach the sovereignty of another State when crimes against humanity are
carried out.
This concept finds its basis in the doctrine of responsibility to protect. This doctrine attempts to
protect innocent civilians against crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing etc. The
origin of the doctrine can be traced to the report presented by the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001. According to the report, the international community
has a responsibility to protect people when the said State is failing to do so or is unwilling to do
so.
According to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General UN in his report on implementing the
responsibility to protect believes that the following are the key elements of the doctrine of
responsibility to protect:2

States should see the doctrine of responsibility to protect as an ally to sovereignty rather
an adversary.

The doctrine should be invoked only in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity.

The scope of the doctrine should be narrow but its effect must be deep.

Francis Kofi Abiew, The Evolution of the Doctrine and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention, Kluwer Law
International, 1999.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/677 as on 23/08/2014.

Although, responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention are used inter changeably, they
are quite different. The doctrine of responsibility to protect allows the use of force only when the
State is failing to do so and extends to only four crimes namely, war crimes, ethnic cleansing,
crimes against humanity and genocides. Furthermore, this doctrine concentrates on building the
States capacity to protect its own population.3
Based on this principle, international communities intervened in Libya. Libya is a country in the
Maghreb region of North Africa. Many European nations have cultural connection with Libya.
Libyan Crisis
Colonel Gadhafi happened to be a dictator who ruled Libya over a period of 42 years. The
citizens of Libya got agitated and initiated protests to oust the dictator. The protesters began at
the capital and the protest rapidly spread across the nation. In order to suppress the agitation,
Gadhafi unleashed the national army to teach the protesters a lesson. The army was ordered to
wipe out the protestors and show no mercy to people who question his authority. Within weeks,
the protest turned violent and as a result thousands of people were murdered.4
In response, the UN adopted Resolution 1970 and 1973 which enabled NATO to step in to
answer the UNs call. NATO launched Operation Unified Protector. The alliance based on the
following reasons decided to use force in order to curb human rights violation:5

To prevent the transfer of arms into Libya

To prevent aircrafts from bombing civilian targets

Conducting air and naval strikes on threats.

As NATO air strikes helped to gradually degrade the Gadhafi regimes ability to target civilians,
NATO defense ministers met in Brussels on 6 October and discussed the prospects of ending
OUP. Ministers confirmed their commitment to protect the people of Libya for as long as threats
persisted, but to end the mission as soon as conditions permitted. The NATO Secretary General
also pledged to coordinate the termination of operations with the UN and the new Libyan
authorities.
3

http://www.redcross.org.au/files/IHL__R2P_responsibility-to-protect.pdf as on 23/08/2014.
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-libya as on 23/08/2014.
5
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-01D6849D-167CC6B1/natolive/topics_71652.htm as on 23/042014.
4

A day after opposition forces captured the last Gadhafi regime stronghold of Sirte and the death
of Colonel Gadhafi on 20 October 2011, the North Atlantic Council took the preliminary
decision to end OUP at the end of the month. During that transition period, NATO continued to
monitor the situation and retained the capacity to respond to threats to civilians, if needed.
A week later, the North Atlantic Council confirmed the decision to end OUP. On 31 October
2011 at midnight Libyan time, a NATO AWACS concluded the last sortie; 222 days after the
operation began. The next day, NATO maritime assets left Libyan waters for their home ports.
Although NATOs operational role regarding Libya is finished, the Alliance stands ready to
assist Libya in areas where it could provide added value, such as in the area of defense and
security sector reforms, if requested to do so by the new Libyan authorities.
Criticisms to Humanitarian Intervention
As all topics, even the topic of humanitarian intervention is met with strong criticisms. It is
argued that humanitarian intervention is a modern form for western colonization. Anne Oxford,
argues that a capitalistic set of constraints are imposed in the illusion of saving the lives of
innocent civilians and curbing mass human rights violation. When such constraints are
sanctioned the result is that the States right to self-determine is hindered. Also the leaders of
such a nation are prevented from adopting policies that benefit the countries development.6
Other jurists view the idea of humanitarian intervention skeptically. They are of the view that
dominant players especially the US are using the said principle as a way to evade nonintervention norms to achieve geopolitical goals. They are of the belief that such interventions
are carried out with a motive to meet their own interests.7
Furthermore, it is contended that NATOs intervention in Kosovo was done with a malafide
intention to boost the credibility of its own credibility.8

Anne Orford. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
7
Noam Chomsky. A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor, and the Standards of the West. New
York: Verso, 2001.
8
Tariq Ali. Masters of the Universe? NATO's Balkan Crusade. New York: Verso, 2000.

Another strong criticism to the scheme of intervention is that it can always backfire. It is feared
that instead of curbing the human rights violation, intervention can indeed aggravate the
bloodshed and thereby defeating the whole purpose of humanitarian intervention.9

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html as on 23/08/2014.

Conclusion
There are both advantages and disadvantages to the concept of humanitarian intervention. On
one hand, intervention serves the following advantages:

The United Nation would not be considered as a means of last resort and faith in its
ability to curb human right violation would be reinstated.

Tyrants would feel threatened and would be more cautious in acting out.

Human lives would be saved as a result of humanitarian intervention.

The faith in human rights and international protection of human rights would be
reaffirmed.

On the other hand, the following are some of the disadvantages of humanitarian intervention:

Powerful States will use human rights violation as a pretext to intervene and attain their
goals.

The efficiency of international organizations would be questioned.

To conclude, it is safe to say humanitarian intervention is a necessary evil in the combat against
international crimes. It is a necessary evil as it has potential to curb human rights violation as
well as the ability to inflict more harm.