Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

The concept of humanitarian intervention does not have a definite and legal definition accepted by all in international law. However, many different scholars have found many different definitions. For example, Herdegen explained this concept in the form of the use of force to minimize human rights violations and ensure the protection of civilians (Aksu and Eminoğlu). According to Weiss, humanitarian intervention is a military intervention that began in the 1990s, acting on humanitarian grounds and performed without the full consent of a state. (Weiss, 2016). Murphy, on the other hand, defined this concept as the possibility or direct use of force by states that have intervened against them or are likely to use force, since human rights are also severely damaged (Murphy, 1996).

Aidan Hehir, on the other hand, has distinguished humanitarian intervention from military intervention. Because the UN is clear about the use of force in the international arena, humanitarian intervention cannot, therefore, be considered only as a military intervention (Hehir, 2013). The use of force is strictly prohibited under Article 51 of the Un Charter, but exceptions are accepted in some cases, such as self-defense. Libya is one of the cases where the UN considers humanitarian intervention necessary (Heywood, 2015). 

Libya faced the demonstrations in February 2011. Although peaceful solutions were produced in the first place in response to the demands of the people, over time, the people who wanted Gaddafi to leave office and change the regime were subjected to serious interventions. (Hehir and Murray, 2013). With the capture of Benghazi by anti-regime groups, there has been a sharp response in the international arena to the growing conflicts and casualties in Libya (Bellamy and Williams, 2011).

The United Nations first decided by law 1970 to impose an arms embargo and confiscate the assets of high rulers such as Gaddafi. However, as a result of the unabated continuation of the Civil War, 19 days later, on March 17, 2011, Resolution 1973 (2011) was adopted. The resolution explained that human rights violations are increasing in Libya and that the civilian population should be protected. Accordingly, the international community has been granted the right to armed intervention (Hehir and Murray, 2013).

Two days after the adoption of Resolution 1973, a decision on military intervention was made as a result of a meeting in Paris on March 19. In Libya, which was blockaded by sea and air, the operation was completed in as little as 6 months. NATO members undertook these interventions between March and October 2011 and initiated this process under the leadership of the USA, France, and Britain. With the support of these countries to opponents of the regime, the regime was overthrown and Gaddafi was killed. (Axworthy, 2011).

If we look at the results of this intervention in the short term, some scholars argued that it was successful. Although the interventions have been criticized in the long term, these interventions have benefited the Libyan people. The goal of stopping human rights violations has been successful. The 42-year dictatorship of the Gaddafi family ended, and national congressional elections were held for the first time on July 7, 2012, after the last free elections in 1952. But in the long term, states such as Russia, Brazil, India, and China, which voted abstain on Council Resolution 1973, have often criticized NATO. They claimed that these interventions were for regime change, out of the purpose of protecting civilians (Morris, 2013). According to Pattison, regime change as a result of these interventions is also a problem in the long term. Because the risks that come with regime changes are greater than the risks that come with humanitarian intervention. This could lead to more civilian deaths. The movements of the Gaddafi regime are not enough to lead to regime change, even if they are sufficient for humanitarian intervention. Therefore, a forced regime change will bring more harm than good in the near future (Pattison, 2011).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AKSU, Z & EMİNOĞLU, A. BM İNSANİ MÜDAHALE KARARLARI VE NATO’NUN LİBYA MÜDAHALESİ. ASSAM Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 322-330.

AXWORTHY, L. 2011. In Libya, we move toward a more humane World. Globe and Mail,    

BELLAMY, A. J. & WILLIAMS, P. D. 2011. The new politics of protection? Côte d'Ivoire, Libya and the responsibility to protect. International Affairs, 87, 825-850.

HEHIR, A. 2013. Humanitarian intervention: an introduction, Macmillan International Higher Education.

HEHIR, A. & MURRAY, R. 2013. Libya, the responsibility to protect and the future of humanitarian intervention, Springer.

HEYWOOD, A. 2015. Key concepts in politics and international relations, Macmillan International Higher Education.

MORRIS, J. 2013. Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum. International Affairs, 89, 1265-1283.

MURPHY, S. D. 1996. Humanitarian intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order, University of Pennsylvania Press.

PATTISON, J. 2011. The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya. Ethics & International Affairs, 25, 271-277.

UN. 1945. UN CHARTER [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text [Accessed].

WEISS, T. G. 2016. Humanitarian intervention, John Wiley & Sons.