The Legacy of UN Military Intervention and State-building in Libya (original) (raw)
Related papers
NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya: Beyond humanitarian intervention
Net Journal of Social Sciences, 2013
The aim of this article is to contribute to the debate that NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya, actively supported by the United Nations Security Council was designed to oust Gadaffi from power. Using political realism as analysis framework, we underscored this position by stating that the pursuit of regime change in Libya by western powers had represented the predominant thrust of American and European policy since 1969 after Colonel Qaddafi seized power by staging a coup d'etat against King Idris. Again, in the course of the revolution in Libya, the West severally directed Gadaffi to resign; not to mention the assistance NATO rendered to rebels; its rejection of armistice deal brokered by Gadaffi's son and the manner NATO bombarded its targets. The current study stresses that Gadaffi chose to die as President because he knew NATO's coalition was bent on ousting him from power.
Against its moral appeal as a framework for protection of civilians from humanitarian catastrophe, the responsibility to protect (RtoP) seems not to have escaped a wider political context. Thus, questions of why, when and how force should be applied have incessantly trailed several intervention operations NATO's intervention in Libya. While the political misgivings of the Libyan regime under Gaddafi were conspicuous, this study argues that the Libyan intervention was however executed without recourse to certain procedural implications; Resultantly, the Libyan debacle has not only contributed to global insecurity, but has equally hampered international consensus building, weakened regional bodies and heightened suspicion amongst world powers, which partly explains the current stalemate on the Syrian crisis. Hence, this study recommends that there is an urgent need to rethink NATO's strategy in conflict management in Africa, and the imperative of institutional synergy between the United Nations and the Africa Union so as to bridge the institutional gaps, engender political will, and by extension the growth of the RtoP. Abstract-Against its moral appeal as a framework for protection of civilians from humanitarian catastrophe, the responsibility to protect (RtoP) seems not to have escaped a wider political context. Thus, questions of why, when and how force should be applied have incessantly trailed several intervention operations NATO's intervention in Libya. While the political misgivings of the Libyan regime under Gaddafi were conspicuous, this study argues that the Libyan intervention was however executed without recourse to certain procedural implications; Resultantly, the Libyan debacle has not only contributed to global insecurity, but has equally hampered international consensus building, weakened regional bodies and heightened suspicion amongst world powers, which partly explains the current stalemate on the Syrian crisis. Hence, this study recommends that there is an urgent need to rethink NATO's strategy in conflict management in Africa, and the imperative of institutional synergy between the United Nations and the Africa Union so as to bridge the institutional gaps, engender political will, and by extension the growth of the RtoP.
A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign
International Security, 2013
NATO's 2011 humanitarian military intervention in Libya has been hailed as a model for implementing the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P), on grounds that it prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi and facilitated the ouster of Libya's oppressive ruler, Muammar al-Qaddafi, who had targeted peaceful civilian protesters. Before the international community embraces such conclusions, however, a more rigorous assessment of the net humanitarian impact of NATO intervention in Libya is warranted. The conventional narrative is flawed in its portrayal of both the nature of the violence in Libya prior to the intervention and NATO's eventual objective of regime change. An examination of the course of violence in Libya before and after NATO's action shows that the intervention backfired. The intervention extended the war's duration about sixfold; increased its death toll approximately seven to ten times; and exacerbated human rights abuses, humanitaria...
A-Model-Intervention-Case-of-the-Libyan-War(1).docx
The outcome of the Libyan rebellion and NATO’s support of it, and Gaddafi’s fall followed by the establishment of interim governing arrangements were subjects to many debates during the last few years. This essay is not a study of failure, but one meant to present NATO’s efforts, together with those of the European Union, to support the extension of democratic norms and to prevent another genocide. For the Libyans the outcome remains to be seen, as the task of building responsible government will be at bet the trial and error of many years to come. This essay’s aim is to present NATO’s intervention in Libya and explains it, involving a more circumstantial definition of what it means to be an alliance. As all alliances are changed according to flux in strategic circumstance, the fact of NATO’s transformation has always been predictable, its specific trajectory much less so. Now more clearly apparent in looking back from Libya is that only a select minority of member states has been prepared to accept in practice as well as in principle the costs inherent in security contingencies far beyond the European periphery. The intervention in Libya testifies, moreover, that the United States specifically has found the experience of the past 20 years immensely sobering. Washington is recalibrating its strategic priorities and abandoning the effort to transform NATO further
Nato Intervention in Libya and its Consequences on Global Security
2017
Against its moral appeal as a framework for protection of civilians from humanitarian catastrophe, the responsibility to protect (RtoP) seems not to have escaped a wider political context. Thus, questions of why, when and how force should be applied have incessantly trailed several intervention operations NATO's intervention in Libya. While the political misgivings of the Libyan regime under Gaddafi were conspicuous, this study argues that the Libyan intervention was however executed without recourse to certain procedural implications; Resultantly, the Libyan debacle has not only contributed to global insecurity, but has equally hampered international consensus building, weakened regional bodies and heightened suspicion amongst world powers, which partly explains the current stalemate on the Syrian crisis. Hence, this study recommends that there is an urgent need to rethink NATO’s strategy in conflict management in Africa, and the imperative of institutional synergy between the ...
Responsibility to Overthrow: Libyan Regime Change and the Politics of Intervention
On February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970 in response to the violence and ongoing human rights violations being committed against the people of Libya by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi and his regime. The charges against the Gaddafi regime are numerous, the majority of which predate the February 2011 popular uprisings in Libya. On March 17, 2011, the Security Council passed Resolution 1973, further condemning the use of force against the rebel forces and imposing a number of sanctions and demands on Gaddafi and his regime including a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. Citing Chapter VII authority, the Security Council demanded an immediate cease-fire, an end to the violence and all attacks against civilians, and called for member states to “take all necessary measures” to prevent further civilian casualties and enforce compliance with the resolution. This article will illustrate the ways in which NATO’s armed intervention in Libya violated customary norms, standards, and practices of international law. This article will also demonstrate the ways in which, from a broader historical perspective, the bombing campaign in Libya constitutes yet another episode in the ongoing saga of Western hypocrisy and global hegemony. In this context, it becomes clear that, while NATO’s recent actions are wrought with international legal violations and contradictions at the local and individual levels, the underlying premise and motivation render the operation itself illegal on a much broader scale.
A War Worth Fighting? The Libyan Intervention in Retrospect
International Politics Reviews, 2015
The Libyan intervention, originally considered a success for NATO in the context of the ‘Arab spring’, is now criticized for creating the political turmoil Libya is currently going through. The three books under review offer different perspectives on the intervention itself, raising important questions about its conduct and its consequences. They also indirectly raise the issue of the difficulty to write about contemporary warfare.
A History of Conflict and International Intervention in Libya
The purpose of this research is to examine the conflict in Libya; most notably from the 2011 ousting of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi up to the present issues surrounding the state. In doing so, this research will focus on three aspects: Libya's history and theories on the cause of violent conflict; foreign military intervention, as well as international reaction; and alternative suggestions to management, and resolutions regarding the current Libyan Conflict.
NATO’s Military Intervention in Libya: Implications on Regional Security
International journal of world policy and development studies, 2019
The study sought to understand the justification of NATO"s intervention in Libya and implications on regional security. Qualitative research methodology was used in the study. Primary and secondary data sources were used to collect data. The findings of the study indicated that NATO"s military intervention in Libya was not justified and failed to promote peace and security. Research findings further showed that the intervention was based on selfinterest. The intentions of NATO in Libya were far-fetched and heavily undermined the doctrines of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and humanitarian intervention. The research findings indicated that NATO intervened in Libya for regime change, imperialism and to benefit from the oil resource. Libyan citizens benefitted nothing from the intervention. The study argues that Libyans suffered economic, socio-political and religious effects. The intervention by NATO fuelled civil wars, violence, religious conflicts and terrorism.
2011 Libyan uprising and NATO intervention: A critical analysis
2016
The study critically evaluated the impact of NATO’s military intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising.Specifically, it was intended to protect innocent civilians by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya ordered by a United Nations Security Council Resolution: 1973 or it was carried out to further the global hegemonic interests of the US through NATO’s military might.The work utilised a theoretical framework of Collective Security, developed by A.F.K. Organski in 1958, and relied on documentary method of data collection and thematic analysis as its tool or yardstick for data analysis.It was found out that the enforcement of a no-fly zone over the Libyan airspace did not protect innocent civilians, but resulted in toppling of Muammar Gaddafi and his 42 year old regime (1st September, 1969-20th October, 2011), worsening insecurity, fragile and unstable government, proliferation of weapons in Libya and its neighbours, such as Mali and Egypt, Diplomatic failure, Loss of Libya’s internal and ...