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

Photo by U.S. Department of State [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Photo by U.S. Department of State [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Chris Michaelsen and UNSW law graduate David Berman publish a critical article on the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (RtoP) and the intervention in Libya. The article, published in a special edition of the International Community Law Review focusing on Libya, challenges the widespread assertion in the public and academic discourse that the military intervention in Libya was a successful first true test of 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.

Link to the full article and special edition of the journal: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/18719732-12341235

First published by Australian Human Rights Centre

Advertisements