The legality of intervening in Libya
At Opinio Juris, Kenneth Anderson stirs the pot on the legality of military intervention in Libya. Suppose that you were the chief legal advisor to the US DOS, or to the UK foreign minister, or to NATO, or some country or coalition in which there is active discussion about armed intervention on humanitarian grounds in Libya, for ...
At Opinio Juris, Kenneth Anderson stirs the pot on the legality of military intervention in Libya.
At Opinio Juris, Kenneth Anderson stirs the pot on the legality of military intervention in Libya.
Suppose that you were the chief legal advisor to the US DOS, or to the UK foreign minister, or to NATO, or some country or coalition in which there is active discussion about armed intervention on humanitarian grounds in Libya, for the express purpose of preventing attacks upon the civilian population. What would you regard as the best legal arguments available today that would legally permit intervention as well as the arguments against, ie, arguments that would legally preclude it? Under intervention here, let us include both a no-fly zone enforced militarily as well as any intervention on the ground that goes beyond simply rescue of one’s own nationals.
There’s plenty of good material in the comments as well.
For its part, the Washington Post isn’t much worried about getting the UN Security Council’s approval for a Libya no-fly zone:
But the United States should not settle on inaction because of inflated assessments of the regime’s remaining capabilities, or resistance from U.N. Security Council members such as Russia. If indeed the stakes in Libya are as Ms. Clinton and others describe them, the United States must do what it can to help bring about Mr. Gaddafi’s downfall.
More: My own view is that, absent a Security Council resolution specifically authorizing force, any intervention would be on very shaky legal ground (if the Council says yes, of course, the legal bases are covered). The notion of humanitarian intervention and the "responsibility to protect" are important ones, but primarily at the normative rather than the legal level.
At some point soon, the question of who is Libya’s legitimate government may arise, but I can’t see any real basis at the moment for arguing that those requesting intervention constitute the country’s government and therefore may legitimately request outside assistance. The strength of the legal basis for intervention obviously doesn’t answer the question of whether intervention is right or wise. I believe that the 1999 Kosovo intervention was both; I also think it was illegal.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
