Intervention in Libya: Another Nail in the Coffin for the Responsibility-to-Protect?

in International Community Law Review
Authors: David Berman 1 and Christopher Michaelsen 1
View More View Less
1 Lawyer, Herbert Smith Freehills, Sydney, Australia Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Online Publication Date:
01 Jan 2012
Volume/Issue:
Volume 14: Issue 4
Article Type:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341235
Keywords:
responsibility-to-protect (RtoP); United Nations (UN); Security Council; Libya; protection of civilians
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

The article challenges the widespread assertion in the public and academic discourse that the military intervention in Libya was a successful first true test of the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). Examining the application of the doctrine as a tool of international political decision making as well as a normative framework in international law, the article reviews relevant Security Council resolutions as well as statements made by UN Member States during the Libyan crisis. These suggest that an express invocation of RtoP would have prevented rather than facilitated the adoption of Resolution 1973 (2011) and its authorisation of the use of force to protect civilians in Libya. It is argued further that a narrower focus on ‘protecting civilians’ rather than on the broader concept of RtoP is likely to provide greater political and legal utility in preventing humanitarian catastrophes in the future, even if the Security Council’s response to the crisis in Syria has been disappointing so far.

Intervention in Libya: Another Nail in the Coffin for the Responsibility-to-Protect?

in International Community Law Review
E-ISSN:
1871-9732
Print ISSN:
1871-9740
Publisher:
Brill | Nijhoff
Cover International Community Law Review

Sections

References

11)

ICISS Report p. viii.

13)

Jeremy I. Levitt“The Responsibility to Protect: A Beaver Without a Dam?”25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2003) pp. 153 157.

30)

Payandehsupra note 21 p. 472.

33)

For in-depth analysis see Focarellisupra note 12 pp. 201–205.

34)

UN Doc. A/59/PV.85 p. 22.

35)

UN Doc. A/59/PV.86 p. 5.

38)

UN Doc. A/59/PV.87 p. 6.

40)

SC Res 1674UN Doc. S/RES/1706 (28 April 2006).

43)

Payandehsupra note 21 p. 482.

44)

Chestermansupra note 7 pp. 127 et seq.

47)

SC Res. 1706Pmbl. UN Doc. S/RES/1706 (31 Aug. 2006).

48)

Roger Cohen“African Genocide Averted,” New York Times8 March 2008 available online at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03cohen.html?_r=0> (accessed 17 September 2012); see also the remarks by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “Secretary-General’s Press Conference in Nairobi” United Nations 1 February 2008 unofficial transcript available online at: <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1127> (accessed 17 September 2012).

55)

SC Res 1674UN Doc. S/RES/1706 (28 April 2006).

74)

SC Res. 1973UN Doc. S/RES/1973 (17 March 2011).

80)

Hilpoldsupra note 3 p. 78.

82)

SC Res. 1970Pmbl. UN Doc. S/RES/1970 (26 February 2011).

84)

UN Doc. S/PV.6491 (26 February 2011) p. 5.

89)

UN Doc. S/PV.6498 (17 March 2011) p. 2.

112)

UN Doc. S/PV.6627 p. 3.

Information

Page Count:
337–358
Subjects:
Public International Law, International Law
Copyright:
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 2012

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 61 61 35
Full Text Views 114 114 65
PDF Downloads 15 15 8
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0