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

2.5.3.2 The Other Factors of Determining the Humanitarian Intervention

If a research examines now other factors to determining the humanitarian character of armed intervention, a research will realize that they give place to controversies. Teson posed as a prerequisite of the legitimacy of armed intervention, the will of the oppressed of the target State. But, how and when can we estimate that this population wishes a foreign invasion. Thus, it is a duty for the intervening power itself to assess and determine the will of a population. Actually, establishment of conditions for implementation of humanitarian intervention, as well as their doctrinal appreciation by the favorable doctrine, seems leading to a great dilemma. Indeed, a researcher realizes that when those conditions are very flexible, they give place abuses and when they are strict, nothing is done to face the humanitarian risks.^118(*)

On one hand, some authors esteem that those requisites are often strict. For instance, Verwey, having considered specific and diversified cases concluded that none of them meets the requirements of humanitarian intervention mainly due to lack of disinterestedness of the interfering States.^119(*)

On the other hand, other authors believe that conditions of legitimacy of humanitarian intervention are very flexible. Teson, for example, considers that the armed invasion of Grenada by the United States in 1983 was justified by humanitarian considerations. Teson goes even further in his reasoning and said that the criteria of the massive violation of human rights would be filled not only for current violations, but also in the hypothesis of the imminence of a violation. For instance, the humanitarian invasions carried out during the last decades, a researcher realizes that the implementation of conditions raised by the doctrine favoring humanitarian intervention lead the majority of analysts to agree with it as well it is judged as abusive. ^120(*)

To sum up, the States stakeholders of international intervention are the only ones to judge the appropriateness of their action, they will do so according to their interest.^121(*) Those different views of authors led us to the next chapter of critical analysis of the international intervention in Libya by NATO.

* ¹¹⁸ TESON, op. cit., p. 15.

* ¹¹⁹ Idem, p.15.

* ¹²⁰ TESON, op. cit., p. 65.

* ¹²¹ A.ROUGIER, op. cit., p. 524.