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

3.4.1. Violation of Jus Ad Bellum Principle in the Regard of Libyan Intervention

The principle of «jus ad bellum» as it has been defined in second chapter it means the reasons why you fight.^220(*) Based on international intervention in Libya by NATO, its reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya in Libya in 2011 were divers. Opponents against the 2011 military intervention in Libya have made allegations of violating the limits imposed upon the intervention by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. At the end of May 2011, Western troops were captured on film in Libya, despite Resolution 1973 specifically forbidding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan Territory".^221(*) Based on 1973 UN Security Council Resolution, NATO was accused of being responsible for the deaths of far more civilians than if it had not intervened according to those opposed to the intervention, this deviation was not respect the article 2 and article 51 of UN Charter on which stresses that no use of force against political independence of any State except in some circumstances.

As research observation, the Libyan intervention by NATO had some critics; the Western Intervention was motive by political hidden, resources hidden and economical hidden before than democratic reasons and humanitarian reasons. Gaddafi's Libya was known to possess vast resources, particularly in the form of oil reserves and financial capital. This intervention is qualified "colonial crusade...capable of unleashing a full scale war", a sentiment that was echoed by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.^222(*)

However, those in favor of that intervention saw that the military intervention in Libya is as an example of the Responsibility to Protect Policy adopted by the UN at the 2005 World Summit. According to Gareth Evans, "The international military intervention in Libya is not about bombing for democracy or Muammar Gadhafi's head, legally, morally, politically, and militarily it has only one justification: protecting the country's people".^223(*)

The Responsibility to Protect was not implicated in the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt because they were primarily considered an internal matter with no significant repercussions for the region, the need for appropriate international engagement has been more broadly discussed in relation to the situation in Libya were there was an international implication. These were the refugee spill over and the oil production, beside the human rights violations in Libya were immensely and much worse than in neighbor states. It is of monumental importance that the international community goes beyond condemnations urging the Libyan regime to halt the atrocities and lives up to its commitment of readiness to take «timely and decisive action».^224(*) In applying the Responsibility to Protect norm in the case of Libya the international community first used diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, and travel ban and arms embargo. As it became obvious that these tools failed to halt the threat of mass atrocities the Security Council considered more robust measures, and adopted a mandate for a no-fly zone.^225(*)

A research personal opinion is that there is a glaring double standard in play. If Libya, then why not Rwanda? The answer is obvious of course; it is a question of alliances, political, economical and military reasons. The debate among Member States around the situation in Libya was not about whether to act to protect civilians for mass atrocities but how to best protect the Libyan population. That is why Member States prioritized the protection of civilians from mass crimes reflects a historic embrace of the Responsibility to protect norm after establishment of the norm at the 2005 World Summit. «We must help governments understand that the Responsibility to Protect norm seeks to protect civilians from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing with a range of measures, of which military intervention is a last resort».^226(*) In the same time, a researcher remind that Member States must not to undermine the Responsibility to Protect norm by confusing civilian protection with other motives such as regime change or resource control.

* ²²⁰ us (or ius) ad bellum is the title given to the branch of law that defines the legitimate reasons a state may engage in war and focuses on certain criteria that render a war just. The principal modern legal source of jus ad bellum derives from the Charter of the United Nations, which declares in Article 2: «All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations»; and in Article 51: «Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.» - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/#sthash.AGPgVVbL.dpuf.

* ²²¹ Hillstrom, D., `The Libyan No Fly Zone: Responsibility to Protect and International Law', Published March 21, 2011, p. 34.

* ²²² Hillstrom, D., op. cit., p. 34.

* ²²³ Gieryez, D., From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect, Criminal Justice, Oxford: University Press, 2010, p. 56.

* ²²⁴ Claes, op. cit., p. 54.

* ²²⁵ Claes, op. cit., p. 71.

* ²²⁶ Gieryez, op. cit., p. 86.