The prospect of international intervention legitimacy: case study of 2011 libyan armed conflict

1.2. Statement of Problem

International law is such a broad research topic which can entail state building, diplomatic relations, humanitarian intervention and human rights protection.

The exercise of international intervention can potentially conflict with states' sovereignty. In Public International Law, all states are governed by general principles such as:

a. The sovereignty,

b. Equality of states,

c. Integrity and non interference in the internal affairs of a country.^17(*)

In the present case study of Libyan, such principles have not been respected basing on the position coming out of the realist tradition of state sovereignty and noninterference which differ automatically from the position of those who claim that there is an established customary right of international intervention regardless of existence or absence of authorization, which is based on the commitment of the UN Charter to protect human rights globally.^18(*)

The international intervention remains legally controversial even after being authorized by the UN Security Council, since using force for the humanitarian purposes does not qualify as fulfilling any of the accepted exceptions to the ban on the use of force.

The concept of international intervention in Libya is still problematic due to some interest of intervene forces. Its controversial nature is reflected already by the fact that it is attempting to bridge two instinctively incompatible words: `for the humanitarian purpose' and `military intervention'.^19(*) Nevertheless, this concept has already become established in the field of research and in the minds of general public and it appears to be too late to try rejecting it^20(*) seeing the argumentation of consequentialist ethics which states that no matter how well intentioned international intervention can easily produce more problems than it solves, resulting in a negative humanitarian outcome.^21(*)

Intervention could, for example, provoke a violent resistance by the Government of the target country; may provoke a violent reaction of the government in the neighboring state; alternatively, it may also prolong or intensify the conflict by injecting the new weapons and men power into the conflict zone or by increasing the prospects and willingness to fight of the conflict party in those support the intervention was carried.^22(*)

The researcher bears in mind that it is impossible to evaluate precisely in advance whether some interventions can succeed or not, since there are simply too many unknown and unpredictable factors outside the control of the intervener.

International intervention is easily associated with the concrete images of humanitarian suffering and imposed military violence, which evoke in each individual strong opinions and emotional reactions to the question of its justice or injustice. This highly normative nature of international intervention complicates the scholarly debate about the concept and keeps the international society short of any consensus on the most basic questions of its definition, legality or legitimacy.^23(*)

The legitimacy of international intervention in general can be resumed to be controversial for reasons opposing it like: the first objection follows the realist way of thinking by claiming that the establishment of such a right would endanger international peace and stability that could unleash an uncontrollable anarchy.^24(*) Second criticism of the Humanitarian Military Intervention (HMI) concept questions the real motivations of the interveners and the related abuses of the right of international intervention mainly for the national interests. Next critical argument suggests that establishment of the right of international intervention could be extremely prone to the potential abuses for the sake of power politics of those countries, which have the sufficient financial and military means to actually conduct such endeavors.^25(*)

Another argument is one of the pluralists who argue that there is no common universal agreement on the political, social and cultural values; and stress that each society cherishes different religious, ethnic, and civilization habits. As a result of that, it is very subjective to evaluate certain policies as being oppressive toward the human rights and thus as being a viable reason for a breach of some state's sovereignty.^26(*)

Another opposing argumentation is one of consequentialist ethics. It states that no matter how well intentioned international intervention can easily produce more problems than it solves, resulting in a negative humanitarian outcome. For instance, the mandate established from 1973 Resolution, was the protection of civilians but the bombing of targets in accustomed areas of Tripoli is aware of protecting civilians for example on 31 May 2011 the NATO strikes have left up to 718 civilians dead in Libya.

The last opposing argument is one of the interventions for humanitarian reasons but invoking military personnel which complicates and endangers work of the non-military humanitarian workers stationed in the conflict zones.

Only after concluding whether such a concept is or is not legitimate, it is possible to confront its assessed legitimacy with its existing legal status, and to call for a potential revision of law in case of a discovered non-compliance of the legal interpretation with the carried out legitimacy judgment.

* ¹⁷ International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001; MacFarlane, Thielking & Weiss, 2004; Barbour & Gorlick, 2008; or Bellamy, 2009, p.37.

* ¹⁸ Wheeler, Nicholas J. & Alex Bellamy, `Humanitarian Intervention and World Politics'. In: Steve Smith & John Baylis, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p.23.

* ¹⁹ Ibid.

* ²⁰ Verwey, Wil, `The Legality of Humanitarian Intervention After the Cold War'. In: E. Ferris (ed.), A Challenge to Intervene: A New Role for the United Nations?, Uppsala: Life and Peace Institute, 1992, pp.12-36.

* ²¹ Ibid.

* ²² Kissinger, Henry, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001, p.78.

* ²³ Ibid.

* ²⁴ Jackson, Robert H., «The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States». Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p.43.

* ²⁵ Kochler, Hans, «The Use of Force in the New International Order»: On the Problematic Nature of the Concept of Humanitarian Intervention', paper presented at the international conference Interventionism against International Law: From Iraq to Yugoslavia, Madrid 2000, and p.67.

* ²⁶ Ibid.